Feminism debate aka W.A.S.P (women are stupid people) pt. 1😈

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
The pain.

Speaker 2 (00:40):
All the people fucking with the cot to say, you
think you you.

Speaker 1 (00:47):
Can't never free yourself.

Speaker 3 (00:49):
From the day.

Speaker 1 (00:50):
Just let the dynas the pain they call.

Speaker 2 (00:54):
The people fucking with the cous say you think your body,
think you'd.

Speaker 1 (00:59):
Go bring something to man assist And I watched that
time something like the sid.

Speaker 3 (01:11):
But I'm not the cause.

Speaker 4 (01:12):
That's a holy mind remiss.

Speaker 5 (01:14):
I've been permitting meditating with the mind that you're baking
and with myself lives.

Speaker 2 (01:20):
This word's too with Dougens the.

Speaker 3 (01:23):
Change, just my mind, d.

Speaker 5 (01:26):
It myself for I've been challenge would to make the
crept for life as to design on the cover talk
this is no accident, max is becasus.

Speaker 6 (01:38):
And it's also I must pretend that.

Speaker 2 (01:40):
There must be slow I see the glasslow.

Speaker 5 (01:43):
We're both prepaying so about having done though it's all
the same.

Speaker 7 (01:49):
Now, who's the plays break the plane?

Speaker 2 (02:02):
He's all the docyboard walking when they conly saying don't
think you do you think you talk and.

Speaker 3 (02:09):
Look in the mirror, bring yourself and.

Speaker 1 (02:11):
Let the Dona scene. Just let the Dona scene pa
break the plane. He's got the dokey board walking when.

Speaker 2 (02:18):
They cons saying, do thank you warrant think you're talking,
Go and look in the mirror, bring yourself and let
the DNA scene. Just let the doga scene be freaking
your men to free the same day the pool of
first he mixed his friend on he motioned coming tail
will sell.

Speaker 3 (02:35):
Less again or the gravious man.

Speaker 4 (02:37):
I'll look at you the thirsty nuts so wonderful. But
if I start the rest the firstmas horn you wad.

Speaker 2 (02:43):
I have to chase, not pulling out bully you be
pulling to be.

Speaker 1 (02:46):
Result in this tri meaning.

Speaker 2 (02:47):
What you need to do a little bit of pers
wats when you will trust, I'll just make you family
picked from the blue along your bed the brig.

Speaker 1 (02:56):
My head be better bat justly.

Speaker 2 (02:59):
Resistance is too way and lut fifty the god the
thing come to paking and then lifting the prig and
then pushing your birding.

Speaker 1 (03:08):
You can not to see the picture.

Speaker 2 (03:09):
They haven't to say the team deciding for them breaking
vincent lady by lady. The more see you so I
they just can be wearing before just start to spare
to tell the talking on they could got his conservatis
and break the pain. He's call the don't people fucking
when they got they say you did you nothing, Go

(03:30):
bring it, look in the mirror, bring yourself and let
the doctor see.

Speaker 1 (03:35):
Just let the dog the scene pass and break the pain.

Speaker 2 (03:38):
They call the donkeypo bucking when they got the say
you think your water?

Speaker 1 (03:43):
Did you nothing?

Speaker 5 (03:44):
Go and bring it?

Speaker 1 (03:45):
Not did the mirror? Bring yourself and let the DNA scene.
Just let the domoscenem.

Speaker 8 (04:26):
Brian atlis a few quick announcements before the show begins.
This podcast is viewer supported heavy YouTube demonetization, so please
consider donating through stream labs instead of soup chatting, as
YouTube takes a brutal thirty percent cut that stream labs
dot com slash whatever link is in the description. We
prioritize messages that are made via stream labs to read
a message is one ninety nine or excuse me not

(04:48):
one ninety nine two hundred dollars up? One hundred and
ninety nine dollars an up. We will read those in
batches at various breaks throughout the debate. There will be
no instant tts. And I do ask that the audience
has a good discipline when it comes to the super
chats and the chats. And if you want to criticize,
you know attack the idea, not the person. Now, if

(05:10):
you want to just tip and have one hundred percent
of your contribution go towards us. No platform, fe's no cut.
You can via vmo or cash app, whatever pot on
both the links in the description. We're also live on
Twitch right now, pull up on another tab, go to Twitch,
dot tv, slash whatever, and drop us a follow in
the prime sub if you have one quick disclaimer, the
views expressed by the guests do not necessarily reflect the

(05:30):
views of the Whatever channel. Without further ado, I will
introduce our two guests. I'm joined today by Andrew Wilson,
host of The Crucible. He's a blood sports debater and
political commentator. Also joining us today is Naima. She's a
senior at University of Southern California. She's a political commentator

(05:52):
and content creator. The topic today is feminism. You will
each have up to a five minute opening statement, and
then the rest of the show will just be open conversation,
possible prompt changes, and we're going to have breaks for
messages from the audience. Andrew, You're going to go first
with your opening statements, so please go ahead.

Speaker 9 (06:13):
Yeah.

Speaker 10 (06:13):
So, my position on feminism is that it's terrible for society.
As we go through this, I'll kind of flesh that
view out using what I call forced doctrine so that
you can understand why I have that same set. But
forced doctrine basically just states that while feminism definitionally is
the movement towards egalitarianism and equity for the removal of

(06:35):
patriarchal systems, that feminists will always have to appeal to
patriarchy in order to try to remove patriarchy, which is
ironically hilarious. But a few things I wanted to get
to first is that I went through several hours of
my opponent's content, and I've actually not ever seen her
make a single argument for anything that she believes. I've

(06:56):
seen her assert a lot of things, but not an
argument for anything she actually believes. So I have some
notes here and I was hoping she could help me
clear some of these things up. From the surrounded September eighth,
twenty twenty four episode, she says abortion is murder or
I'm sorry, the prompt is abortion is murder and should
be illegal. She asked for a viability time for twenty weeks,
and thanks abortion before twenty weeks. It's acceptable. She says

(07:19):
the fetus is technically classified as a parasite. The fetus
cannot exist outside of the womb, and therefore is a parasite.

Speaker 9 (07:27):
The actual definitions don't support this.

Speaker 10 (07:29):
An organism living in on or with another organism in
order to obtain nutrients, grow multiply, that would be an
actual definition of a parasite, or someone or something that
resembles a biological parasite living off of being dependent on
or exploring another vetuses can't fit that Definitionally, fetus is

(07:49):
the same species. Biological parasites are classified as other, not
the same species.

Speaker 9 (07:54):
Also, mutual biology.

Speaker 10 (07:57):
Mothers in fetus coadapt and mother's actually healthier while they're pregnant,
so you can't really be a parasite. And parasites are
rarely temporary, and fetuses are so, and none of that
fits the criteria for a parasite.

Speaker 9 (08:11):
On our video middle ground progressives versus moderates.

Speaker 10 (08:14):
In this from January nineteenth, she says the prompt is
does the far left make Democrats lose elections? She said
Kamalo was not progressive enough, not far left enough. She
talks about how women's rights are being stripped, but didn't
give any examples of what those are. So I'm actually
really confused about a lot of her positions, including in

(08:37):
her rematch against Charlie Kirk that happened March fifth, twenty
twenty five.

Speaker 9 (08:40):
Hy DEI is unlawful. Her rebuttal to Kirk was bizarre.

Speaker 10 (08:45):
It just had something to do with there's no racial
factor in DEI, even though Kirk gave a pretty good
rebuttal for that. So I'd like her to kind of
dive into what she actually believes within the paradigm of feminism.

Speaker 9 (08:59):
But for my positive position, I will say have a.

Speaker 10 (09:02):
Logical argument called force doctrine, And my logical argument called
force doctrine refutes the feminist ideology and it just works.

Speaker 9 (09:12):
As I explained before.

Speaker 10 (09:14):
That patriarchy must always be appealed to in order to
try to eliminate patriarchy. Women can't enforce their own rights
collectively and men can. Therefore, women always have to appeal
collectively to men for their rights. So you're always going
to essentially have a patriarchy through force doctrine, and there's
nothing women can do about that. So I willing to
logically go through that and have it examined rigorously but

(09:37):
I'm hoping that with that.

Speaker 9 (09:40):
You can also describe your positions so that I understand
them better.

Speaker 4 (09:45):
All right, thank you, Andrew. If you'd like to give
your opening statement.

Speaker 6 (09:48):
Yes, thank you, Andrew. You know, I do think that
that is an interesting claim that I don't, you know,
state my arguments, because I've actually been watching some of
your content and I've noticed kind of a similar time
friend as well, within these debates, where you will ask
your debate questions but will not put forth your argument,
including in your opening statement. You know, you state force doctrine,

(10:10):
but instead of elaborating on it, you consistently talk about
what I've talked about, which only one of those topics
was actually related to feminism. Now, when it comes to
my actual beliefs, I think my goal and my hope
for this country is to see us advance as a society.
I would like to see everyone have bodily autonomy, and
I would like for the beast majority of people, if
not everyone, to have their basic needs met. And I

(10:31):
would like to mitigate any unnecessary conflict between the citizens
of this country. Genuinely, I think that my main issue
with the manisphere and with your forced doctrine principle is
that it promotes and spreads divisiveness against men and women.
It promotes in spreads violence against men and women, and
it exaggerates and focuses the differences between the genders. I

(10:53):
think that men and women, I mean, I don't think.
I know men and women are the same species. We
are ninety nine percent genetically similar. And the tessive need
to define and separate people based on one singular chromosome
is doing both men and women at disservice socially, economically,
and politically, which we can get into. I'm ready to
open it up if you want to. Yeah, I actually

(11:15):
I'd love to start with a question for you. I
would like to go back to the force doctrine theory
if we can. I just kind of want to understand more.
I know you've talked a lot about the equal force
objection in the past. You've said men have essentially a
monopoly on force if I'm correct, Okay, perfect, And.

Speaker 9 (11:35):
They want me to walk you through the argument.

Speaker 6 (11:36):
No, I'm gonna elaborate, thank you, and that rights exist
through physical force, that our legal system is based on
physical force. So I guess I kind of just want
to hear you elaborate.

Speaker 10 (11:47):
On that now if you're welcome, So you want my
argument for the forced doctrine, Yeah, okay, So what force
doctrine is saying is very simple that feminism, if you
at least agree with my definition, and broadly feminists do
that it's a movement towards egalitarianism and equity and the
removal of patriarchy. If you can't have an oppressed class

(12:08):
without an oppressor class, at least not from the Marxist
feminist view. In the case, if women are being oppressed,
they're not being oppressed by wolves, They're being oppressed by men, right,
So if that's the case, then my argument to them
is that whatever you believe this oppression is, you will
actually have to appeal to men in order to either

(12:29):
relinquish whatever the suppression is or.

Speaker 9 (12:34):
Concede to whatever it is that they want.

Speaker 10 (12:35):
Because collectively women actually cannot overthrow any patriarchal systems.

Speaker 9 (12:40):
They rely on the force of men.

Speaker 10 (12:42):
And so if men anytime they want to decide to
remove women's rights, there's actually not anything women can do
about it.

Speaker 9 (12:47):
But the opposition is not true.

Speaker 10 (12:49):
The opposite, It is not true women cannot collectivize and
take awaymen's rights.

Speaker 6 (12:52):
Okay, So are you essentially saying that women do not
deserve the right.

Speaker 10 (12:57):
To fight for their own yea an oclaim. I'm not
making an acclaim. I'm trying to get us to the
descriptor first. So instead of making a prescriptive statement, I'm
starting with a descriptive statement what is true, and then
we can worry about what it's what should be true
after we can determine what is true.

Speaker 6 (13:13):
Okay, but I'm trying to see, like, structurally, how does
that work in the real world. Are you saying that
women should not fight for their.

Speaker 10 (13:19):
Rights because they Listen, let's back up, so I can
distinguish two things. Okay, is ought right? So I'm not
trying to bridge the isak. Yeah, I'm trying to start
with a descriptive claim. So if if the descriptive claim
is true, then we can move through the to the
prescriptive side of it. But right now you would either

(13:41):
need to agree with me that descriptively I'm right or
that descriptively I'm wrong.

Speaker 6 (13:45):
I can't agree with you to say that descriptively you're
right until you apply what you're saying in theory to
the practice of modern day society. How does your equal
force objection, How does this principle work in society? What
are you saying?

Speaker 9 (14:00):
Yeah, I'm saying that interest that.

Speaker 10 (14:04):
Yeah, I think that because that is the case, that
men deserve to have various privileges that they're not given
in society, which they should be given in society.

Speaker 6 (14:12):
So what are the privileges that you think that men
should have that women should not have.

Speaker 10 (14:16):
Well, primarily, I think that if you're going to look
at an equalization, what I would do prescriptively would be
role voting back. And that's for both sexes. I think
that rolling voting back for both sexes is a good idea.
And have some sort of perhaps like one house voting system,
or one marriage voting system, or people who have done

(14:38):
some sort of collective service to the state for a
voting system. I think that those things would all be
very good systems for everybody. Now I would apply that
hang on, I would apply that broadly to men, and
I would apply that to women. I think that right now,
men get the shaft because men are men are required

(14:59):
to do a lot of job that women are not,
which keeps society going, and women are not doing those things.
And because of that, I don't understand why it is
that women can nullify their votes and disenfranchise them most importantly,
vote to send them to the wars they don't have
to go fight in.

Speaker 6 (15:14):
So you would like to disenfranchise both men and women's.

Speaker 9 (15:18):
Mostly most of them.

Speaker 10 (15:20):
Yes, would be a better achieve Well, it would achieve
the same thing our founders basically wanted to achieve, which
is that they thought that you would have to have
a stake in the country in order to vote.

Speaker 6 (15:30):
But if you live in the country, and if you
exist in the country, and if you're being legislated by
the laws that the country is making, don't you have
a stake in them?

Speaker 11 (15:36):
No?

Speaker 9 (15:36):
Not always. In fact, many times you don't.

Speaker 10 (15:39):
Many times many people actually get more back from the
state than they put into the state.

Speaker 9 (15:43):
So that's at the expense of.

Speaker 6 (15:44):
Other people who is that.

Speaker 10 (15:46):
So there's lots of people who pay who get a
mass mount back from the government that they never pay
to the government. This can happen through things like social security, disability,
things like welfare, things like even earned incomes out credit
that you may received even though you don't actually pay
anything into the system.

Speaker 9 (16:04):
We're very little into the system.

Speaker 6 (16:05):
But those are it's a crime to lie on your
taxes and commit that. Isn't that tax fraud to claim
it dependent?

Speaker 10 (16:11):
No, no, no, there's just that it's not tax fraud
saying there's people who get more out of the system
than they put into the system.

Speaker 6 (16:19):
Okay, but there's still at stake because they still live here. Now,
are their lives not at stake?

Speaker 10 (16:24):
That that that wouldn't follow that because they live here,
they deserve the right to vote, though, yes, it's I.

Speaker 6 (16:30):
Mean, no taxation without representation. That's the point of representative
democracy is that everyone is represented.

Speaker 10 (16:35):
And how come their founding fathers didn't give everybody the
right to vote from the beginning.

Speaker 6 (16:38):
I mean the founding fathers also endorsed and owned slaves.
You but that's slavery. I found fas endorse slaves.

Speaker 10 (16:46):
Okay, but do you believe in ch so you do
realize that they could do bad thing, right, I can
agree that's bad thing, but that has nothing relationally to
do with how they set up the system of government.

Speaker 6 (16:58):
I mean, I thought this was going to be a
bit feminism. Honestly, I think that's kind of wild because
it sounds like you're disenfranchising men. So who do you
think would it be?

Speaker 10 (17:06):
Are you trying to you are you're taking a disenfranchising
then calm down, I'll explain it.

Speaker 6 (17:10):
If you're taking away the votes of a man because
he is not I guess land owning?

Speaker 4 (17:16):
Is that?

Speaker 6 (17:16):
What the what's the.

Speaker 9 (17:17):
Correct ultimate having a vote?

Speaker 10 (17:18):
I think ultimately more men would be voting because they
would have more steak.

Speaker 6 (17:22):
So can I ask, can every man go to prison?

Speaker 9 (17:25):
Okay?

Speaker 6 (17:26):
If they commit a crime, they can go to prison.
Everyone can do that, yes, okay, and everyone is in
this country has to abide by the laws of this
country otherwise they will go to prison. Yes, yeah, okay,
So why wouldn't they be allowed to vote on the
representatives that define those laws if they that is a stake.
If you can go to prison for committing a crime

(17:46):
that is created by the government, then you do have
a stake legislatively in the laws of the government creates.

Speaker 9 (17:51):
That Still wouldn't follow that you would need to vote.

Speaker 6 (17:53):
Yes, you would need to vote. You want to vote
for the representatives that create laws that are just and fair?

Speaker 9 (17:57):
Toy, Why like you could have.

Speaker 6 (17:58):
Because you could go to prison.

Speaker 9 (18:00):
It's a huge stake. Let me, I'll show you right,
can kings put you in prison? Yeah? King, kings also
pass just laws.

Speaker 6 (18:08):
Sometimes.

Speaker 9 (18:09):
Okay, So if.

Speaker 10 (18:10):
Kings pass just laws, why do you need to vote? Well,
why did we find answer the question before you ask
another one? I just answered all of yours. If a
king passes just laws, why would you need to vote?

Speaker 6 (18:20):
Because a king can also pass unjust laws, so can legislatures. Sure,
but if you have a stake in that, and if
you're able to represent for your legislator, you can vote
a legislator.

Speaker 10 (18:28):
Yeah, but you can also rebel against kings. So like,
that's why I'm saying your position doesn't follow. It doesn't
actually follow for you to say that because you can
be imprisoned inside of a nation, that that somehow gives
you the right to vote.

Speaker 9 (18:41):
Well, because.

Speaker 10 (18:43):
I'm falsifying your stake. I'm falsifying your claim. If you
claim kings make can make just laws, right, yes, then
I don't understand why would people need to vote when
kings are making just laws?

Speaker 6 (18:56):
Well, then why would we leave the monarchy of England?
If kings can make just laws.

Speaker 9 (19:00):
Why would we leave? Well, in that case, they had
you had a nation, a part that had a rebellion
against the king, That's what was going on.

Speaker 10 (19:07):
But kings have been rebelled against historically under certain circumstances
many times.

Speaker 6 (19:11):
So you'd like to go back to feudalism, like, yeah,
that is, it would be frudialism is under amnocracy.

Speaker 10 (19:18):
It would be called limited democracy, which is exactly what
we had here. Do you think we had feudalism because
most people couldn't vote here, we had.

Speaker 6 (19:25):
Limited democracy and then there were like several many uprisings
against that limited democracy because everyone there there.

Speaker 9 (19:31):
Wasn't uprisings really against that.

Speaker 10 (19:33):
The only uprising that I'm aware of in American history
against America was a civil war.

Speaker 6 (19:38):
The Civil War, the Civil Rights That wasn't about voting.
This movement that was voting, the civil rights movement, No, no.

Speaker 9 (19:44):
No, no no, This civil war wasn't about voting.

Speaker 6 (19:47):
Well, I mean, it was about the owning of chattel slaves.

Speaker 9 (19:50):
So not about voting then.

Speaker 6 (19:51):
Which is also about human and civil rights.

Speaker 9 (19:54):
But not about voting though, But voting is a civil right.
I don't know, I'm not sure that I believe.

Speaker 6 (19:59):
In this about freedom and representation.

Speaker 9 (20:02):
Yes, let's back up, that's.

Speaker 6 (20:04):
What voting is. Voting is representation into mind.

Speaker 10 (20:06):
I understand, but you haven't actually made the positive case
for why people need to be able to vote.

Speaker 6 (20:10):
People need to be able to vote because they have
a stake in the legislation in this country. If you
can be imprisoned at this country, if you can be
robbed of your bodily autonomy by the legislators of this country,
then you should be able to have a stake in
what the laws of those legislators are making.

Speaker 9 (20:25):
Well, let's see if this makes sense.

Speaker 10 (20:27):
Do you agree with me that individually, individual vote voters
don't actually have very much power at all.

Speaker 6 (20:32):
Individual voters know, but that's the point of a collective vote.

Speaker 9 (20:35):
Yeah, I'm with you.

Speaker 10 (20:36):
So individuals already don't really have very much power just
because they could vote, right, sure, so, isn't it the
case actually that what you're advocating for is political tribalism
because you don't have individual.

Speaker 9 (20:47):
Power as a voter.

Speaker 10 (20:49):
You actually have to tribalize with other voters in order
to have any sort of collective power.

Speaker 6 (20:53):
Right, Well, you're taking away power from all the voters.

Speaker 10 (20:56):
Answer my question, please tribal the idea that you, as
the individual, do not have power, Right you do have
to collectivise with other people?

Speaker 6 (21:07):
Right, Okay, but how is it taking away.

Speaker 9 (21:09):
Answer yes or no?

Speaker 3 (21:11):
No?

Speaker 9 (21:11):
Yeah, okay, no, But.

Speaker 6 (21:13):
Here's my question. How is taking away more people's votes
disincentivizing political tribal Yes, because now I have to band
with someone. Because now I have to band with someone
who has a vote, I don't even get a stake.
So you're saying, because people don't have enough power to vote,
I'm going to take what little power they do have.

Speaker 9 (21:30):
You're not answering my question though.

Speaker 6 (21:31):
It just doesn't make sense to you, I know, but
you got to answer my question. It just doesn't sound
like you believe it.

Speaker 9 (21:35):
It sounds like you need to answer my question though.

Speaker 6 (21:37):
It sounds like your question is it's meant to trap
me because you're just can.

Speaker 9 (21:41):
You just answer the question?

Speaker 1 (21:43):
Please?

Speaker 9 (21:43):
What's what's relations about my argument?

Speaker 6 (21:45):
You're saying that people do not have a stake in
this country, therefore they do not have a right to vote.

Speaker 9 (21:49):
It's not what I said. What you're doing is a
straw man fallows. When we go back to you can
go you can go back.

Speaker 10 (21:54):
Can I say to you specifically, is what you're saying
doesn't logically follow and when I'm talking about political tryibism,
do you agree with me that you do if you
need to have collectives to have actual political power, are
you not promoting political tribalism if you need.

Speaker 6 (22:10):
To have collect But that's how voting works. It's about a.

Speaker 10 (22:13):
Majority, So then you are promoting collective political tribalism.

Speaker 6 (22:16):
Right, So voting and then the will of the majority
is essentially political tribalism, is what you're saying.

Speaker 9 (22:23):
Well, it's not really the will of the majority. Here's
what happens. No, not really.

Speaker 6 (22:27):
Do you understand how voting works.

Speaker 9 (22:29):
Do you?

Speaker 1 (22:29):
Yeah?

Speaker 10 (22:30):
Okay, well, then tell me how it's the will of
the majority. When a California legislator gets elected.

Speaker 6 (22:35):
Well, everyone who would like to vote can vote.

Speaker 9 (22:38):
And then what about the most what about the people
in Georgia?

Speaker 6 (22:41):
Well, why would a person in Georgia get to vote.

Speaker 9 (22:43):
On the It's not really the collective, it's the tribe. Right,
But then Georgians get to vote for their right, so
it's a tribe.

Speaker 6 (22:49):
Then, and then all of those legislators come together.

Speaker 9 (22:52):
It's a tribe. So it's a tribe.

Speaker 6 (22:54):
It's not a truck. But are called states? Yeah?

Speaker 9 (22:57):
State? And states are voting for their own interests.

Speaker 6 (22:59):
Right, But states will vote for the governors. Why would
I get to vote for the Listen to me, Why
would I get to vote for the governor of let's
say Tennessee if I don't live in Tennessee?

Speaker 9 (23:11):
Makes sense?

Speaker 10 (23:12):
Okay, So it's almost like it's almost like these individual states, right,
they vote along tribal lines for that state's particular interests.

Speaker 6 (23:19):
Right, Yes, and not each state has a representative right,
which they said active government?

Speaker 10 (23:24):
Sure, in the federal government, right, if you're talking about
in our Senate and in our Congress.

Speaker 9 (23:28):
Right, yes, great, So let's start with this.

Speaker 10 (23:32):
If it is the case that you have California and Nevada,
these are two states which are next to each other.

Speaker 9 (23:36):
You agree, right, Yes?

Speaker 10 (23:37):
Can these states vote against each other's interests when it
comes to resources in the federal government?

Speaker 1 (23:42):
Yes?

Speaker 9 (23:42):
No, even at the state level, they can, right, Why
would they be able.

Speaker 6 (23:45):
To do at the state level. I can't vote for
the Nevada governor. I can't vote for.

Speaker 10 (23:49):
Because perhaps there's something that perhaps Nevada, perhaps Nevada has
some type of I don't know, assessed attacks or something
like this that they're able to collect, which proportionally affects
Californians in some way.

Speaker 9 (24:02):
They can do that, right, what law is that, whatever
it would be, they can't do.

Speaker 6 (24:07):
Does it exist?

Speaker 9 (24:10):
Can they do that? Can they do that? Is my question?

Speaker 6 (24:13):
Can Nevada legislate against California?

Speaker 10 (24:15):
Now they're not legislating against Listen to my question. Actually,
I want you to repeat my question so I know
you actually heard it.

Speaker 6 (24:21):
I'm sorry, I'm not a dog a guy.

Speaker 9 (24:22):
Can you can you repeat it? Well, it's called steelmating
a position. Hey, the question?

Speaker 10 (24:25):
Okay, can states vote against other states in triests simply
by having a neighboring state? Right, Let's just say, for instance,
that you were to have, like, oh, I don't know,
trucks which went between Nevada and California, Right, And California
took advantage of this by raising taxes on gasoline, but
only on the border areas where these goods came in.

(24:47):
This disproportionately hurts Nevada truckers for some reason. Right, they
can do that, right, Yes, they can do Okay, great,
so in California if that was beneficial to Californians, they
would basically be voting for their tribe inast Nevada.

Speaker 6 (25:00):
Right, But is that happening hypothetic?

Speaker 9 (25:03):
Now, there's tons and tons.

Speaker 10 (25:04):
Of instances where different states do various things, even asking
for federal money in over just compared to other states
for different problems. Same thing with disaster support. They definitely
are all trying to support their tribe.

Speaker 6 (25:16):
Okay, So because states can potentially hypothetically vote against another
state's interest, men and women should not have the right.

Speaker 9 (25:23):
Now that's not the conclusion, but that's that was your argument.

Speaker 6 (25:28):
Do you know what a descript is one marriage voting system?

Speaker 10 (25:31):
Why don't you understand the difference between a descriptor and prescriptor?

Speaker 9 (25:35):
What did I prescribe?

Speaker 6 (25:36):
What you prescribed is one voting system is a system
in which men and women are.

Speaker 10 (25:41):
What I'm doing right now is I'm giving you descriptors
so we can determine if it's tribalism or not, because
you said it's not tribalism to have collectivism in voting blocks,
which is insane.

Speaker 6 (25:50):
But what you haven't been able to answer is why
disenfranchising more voters is something political tribalism?

Speaker 10 (25:57):
Letter get to the right sentence, Well, let me explain
it the best way that I possibly can your worldview
promotes political tribalism. So what happens is this NGOs can
go to our government and they can bribe them for
voting blocks. And that's exactly what they do. Non government
organizations do this, and lobbyists do this. And what they
do is they raid the treasury from people like you

(26:18):
and me so that they can bribe certain portions of
the electorate in order to incentivize them to collectivize.

Speaker 9 (26:24):
That's why black people often vote as a monolith.

Speaker 10 (26:26):
For instance, they vote monolithically up to eighty ninety percent together,
especially in national ngon especially in national elections, because they're
promised made certain promises out of the treasury from the electorate,
usually at the expense of other forms of voters.

Speaker 9 (26:43):
This is one hundred percent tribalism.

Speaker 6 (26:45):
So how are NGOs bribing politicians influencing who black people
as individuals choose to vote for.

Speaker 9 (26:52):
How do NGOs do that?

Speaker 6 (26:54):
I just don't understand how you're saying. I mean, I
agree that NGOs should not be bribing. In law, you
shouldn't be bribing, but instead of I mean, that's what
they do though, right, Okay, But we're trying to get
back to your claim that I'm in the middle of
my claim. Okay, well I'm responding because this is a conversation.

Speaker 9 (27:11):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (27:11):
Sure, So we're trying to get back to your claim
that less people from both sexes should be able to vote.

Speaker 10 (27:17):
Yeah, no, that's not where we just were. Where we
your initial Yeah, but now you're just pivoting where we
just were was No, you're pivoting.

Speaker 9 (27:27):
We're talking right now about.

Speaker 10 (27:28):
Whether tribalism is descriptively true in your voting system.

Speaker 6 (27:31):
I understand that, but we're trying to get back to
your initial claim because you have a very important claim
to defend. You're trying to, I am defend the American
people poorly. But let's get Okay, so NGO's bribe lobbyist bribe,
and that is impacting who and what politicians are promoting.
I would agree with that statement. Would you agree with
that statement.

Speaker 10 (27:52):
Well, not just what they're promoting, but also they are
setting the precedent for laws themselves. Okay, yes, so they
actually I would I would even argue back that inngos
and private think groups write the laws in which politicians
most often execute, and so do bankers as well.

Speaker 6 (28:09):
I agree with that. So why would taking away votes
from the average American and singular citizen prevent NGOs and
lobbyists from having an ability to impact and predict and
create laws.

Speaker 10 (28:23):
Yeah, so if you're if you move to stakeholder democracy,
this idea that you had to have some sort of
public service or something like this, it actually collect devices
down the voting pool, which adds responsibilities to the voters
who can then be held accountable, which right now voters
can't be.

Speaker 9 (28:39):
That's why, that's why it's so important.

Speaker 6 (28:41):
So you're not saying so, you're saying, how well, legislators
will create laws that hold those voters accountable. Are the
ones who have to follow them?

Speaker 3 (28:49):
Do you not have?

Speaker 9 (28:50):
How are they?

Speaker 10 (28:50):
Well, that's not you being held accountable. No, No, So
right now under tribalism you can get laws passed which
affect me but benefit you. I can't go like, hold
you somehow accountable for that. But that's how a majority
voting I know, which is why I want limited democracy
where we can actually hold people accountable in charge. How

(29:12):
would I be in charge if you get stakeholder democracy?

Speaker 6 (29:15):
Well, you said one marriage voting system.

Speaker 9 (29:17):
That could be one way of doing it.

Speaker 6 (29:18):
Yes, Okay, what are the other ways of doing.

Speaker 9 (29:20):
Another good way would be public service who perhaps up
to public service, perhaps.

Speaker 10 (29:25):
Up to three to five years unpaid or military service
would be good.

Speaker 6 (29:29):
So during this public service in which people are working
three to five years unpaid, how are they paying for
food and groceries in housing?

Speaker 9 (29:36):
Yeah, so the state would take care of that, just
like they do in the military.

Speaker 6 (29:39):
The state would take care of that like they do
in the military. And how do you plan on getting
that passed?

Speaker 9 (29:44):
What does that have to do with anything?

Speaker 10 (29:46):
Well, because let's say I could never get it passed.
We're arguing the ideology of this system. What does that
do with anything?

Speaker 6 (29:51):
What's the point in creating an ideology that will never
work out?

Speaker 9 (29:54):
How are you going to get Marxism passed? So are
you a Marxist? But you're Marxist?

Speaker 12 (30:00):
Right?

Speaker 1 (30:00):
Did you know that?

Speaker 9 (30:01):
Well, I don't know.

Speaker 10 (30:02):
That's what your videos seem to imply that you believe
in Marxist feminism. Why are you a socialist on a
certain levels? Okay, how are you going to get socialist?

Speaker 6 (30:10):
Like?

Speaker 10 (30:10):
That's silly that us making the comparison contrast between like
socialism capitalism has no bearing on whether or not I
could somehow get this passed or have some plan to
get it passed.

Speaker 9 (30:20):
Okay, I'm arguing about the ideology here.

Speaker 6 (30:22):
Do you want to understand my believe or do you
just want to guess?

Speaker 9 (30:25):
Well, hang on, what does I have to do? You
know what I just said?

Speaker 6 (30:27):
Though, I mean, you just called me a marx Do
you agree?

Speaker 9 (30:30):
Well, if you're not a.

Speaker 10 (30:30):
Marxist that we're doing a comparison contrast of worldviews and ideology.
For doing contrast worldview and ideology, it's a non sequitor,
asked me, Well, how are you going to get it passed?

Speaker 9 (30:39):

Speaker 6 (30:40):
Well, why would you create a worldview that fundamentally cannot
work in practice?

Speaker 10 (30:44):
Well, that's a worldview that fundamentally cannot work in practice.

Speaker 9 (30:48):
If I couldn't even if I couldn't.

Speaker 10 (30:50):
Prescriptively tell you, like the next political chain of things
we do to get there has nothing to do with
whether or not the worldview in practice would work.

Speaker 9 (30:58):
Maybe you have any.

Speaker 6 (30:59):
Practical guesses for how we could apply this to a
modern day society.

Speaker 10 (31:02):
Well, I just yeah, I just told you how we
would apply it. You would have stakeholder democracy.

Speaker 6 (31:07):
Okay, So that's just so one day We're just going
to flip a switch and have that. Like, I don't understand.

Speaker 9 (31:11):
What do you mean?

Speaker 10 (31:12):
Okay, you could have an amendment for it. You could
repeal the Nineteenth Amendment.

Speaker 9 (31:16):
You could.

Speaker 6 (31:17):
So you want to repeal the right to vote or.

Speaker 10 (31:19):
Just replace it, it wouldn't be What I'm talking about
is universal suffrage.

Speaker 9 (31:23):
You keep on making a conflation in terms.

Speaker 10 (31:25):
You think that because I say universal suffrage, that means
no suffrage. I'm talking about limited suffrage.

Speaker 6 (31:31):
So who gets to decide to just gets the right?

Speaker 10 (31:34):
Didn't I literally just tell you who gets to decide
who or who gets to vote?

Speaker 6 (31:37):
Okay, So everyone who participates in this public service gets
the right.

Speaker 9 (31:44):
Could be one way to do it, yes, okay, and
that anyone could do that.

Speaker 6 (31:49):
You want to do it?

Speaker 10 (31:50):
Yeah, people, people could do it if they're willing to
give up X amount of years of their lives for
unpaid service so that they could then vote.

Speaker 6 (31:57):
But it's not on paid service because the government would
be paying for their food and their housing.

Speaker 9 (32:00):
Yeah, but you wouldn't be getting anything additional to that.

Speaker 6 (32:02):
Okay, Well, why not just have civil servants who are.

Speaker 10 (32:05):
Already because civil servants have specific jobs to do like
you know, working at the DMV and stuff like that,
and working in the Social Security office.

Speaker 6 (32:13):
So you're basically saying anyone who does community service should
get the right to vote.

Speaker 10 (32:16):
Now, some sort of civil occupational service under the state.
That could be like civil firefighting work. Maybe it could
be civil paramedic work. It could all there's all sorts
of different things you can look at for stakeholder democracy.
When we've seen it applied around the world's been somewhat successful.

Speaker 6 (32:31):
And do the laws apply to everyone in the society
or just the.

Speaker 9 (32:34):
People who Yeah, they still apply to everyone.

Speaker 6 (32:37):
Yeah, okay, So how can you create and apply a
law to people who are not represented? I just don't understand. Morally,
how do you justify there's nothing immoral about it. There's
nothing immorralo I mean, but that's like I.

Speaker 9 (32:50):
Would say, it's more and moral.

Speaker 10 (32:52):
Why is it moral for an eighteen year old to
nullify the vote of a forty one year old. The
eighteen year old doesn't even know what they're voting for.

Speaker 9 (32:57):
How's that moral?

Speaker 6 (32:58):
Well, because the eighteen year old is still subject to
the laws of the stag.

Speaker 9 (33:02):
Yeah, but they don't even know what they're voting for.

Speaker 6 (33:04):
Can an eighteen year old go to jail for twenty years?

Speaker 9 (33:07):
A sixteen year old can? Should they be able to vote?

Speaker 6 (33:09):
Sixteen year olds can go to Yes they can.

Speaker 9 (33:11):
Sixteen year olds can go to jail for life. Should
they be able to vote?

Speaker 6 (33:14):
I mean no?

Speaker 1 (33:15):
But why not?

Speaker 9 (33:16):
Why not? The laws apply to him?

Speaker 2 (33:17):
Though?

Speaker 6 (33:17):
Why would a sixeen year old be going to hang on?

Speaker 9 (33:19):
I don't understand because you murdered someone.

Speaker 6 (33:20):
Okay, that's fair. I mean, if you murder someone, that's all.

Speaker 9 (33:23):
So I don't understand. Why can't he vote? The laws
apply to him. Why can't he vote?

Speaker 6 (33:27):
Yeah, but we all understand.

Speaker 9 (33:28):
No, we all understand.

Speaker 10 (33:30):
It's not an argument. Why does a sixteen year old
get to vote? Even though all the laws apply to
the sixteen year old? Why does he get to vote?

Speaker 6 (33:36):
And all they start in juvenile detention and then add eighteen.

Speaker 9 (33:40):
So laws applied to sixteen year old.

Speaker 6 (33:43):
You're re tried at eighteen?

Speaker 9 (33:44):
So laws apply to sixteen year olds some laws of course? Okay, great?
Why can't they vote? Then?

Speaker 6 (33:49):
So babies should get the right to vote, that's my
question to you.

Speaker 9 (33:52):
That makes no sense exactly, So why do we limit
it to eighteen?

Speaker 6 (33:55):
Well, that's the age that we've defined as being a
legal adult, that's the age that we as a country
have universally with our right to vote.

Speaker 9 (34:01):
Is yeah, but what makes that a good idea? Just
because you are arbitrarily that's it.

Speaker 10 (34:05):
Yeah, But just because you arbitrarily say, for instance, that
because you're eighteen and you're an adult, like you can't
buy cigarettes, you can't buy beer, you can't rent a car,
but you're an adult, and now you can vote in
the participation of democracy.

Speaker 9 (34:21):
At least raise it, so.

Speaker 6 (34:22):
You'd like to raise it.

Speaker 9 (34:23):
At least raise it, so.

Speaker 6 (34:24):
You would like to universally raise the age to vote.
I think that at least idea than like no, no, no, no, no.

Speaker 10 (34:31):
What I say is at least do that. But the
thing is, like, you're actually inconsistent here. Your whole argument
is to say, if laws affect people, they should have
a right to vote. But we have an entire cast
of people from the age seventeen down who laws apply
to and can't vote, and you just are like you
shuck that off, like you didn't contradict yourself.

Speaker 6 (34:50):
I'm pretty sure it has something to do with brain development.

Speaker 10 (34:52):
But we've all like you have to have not fully
developed till what twenty five according.

Speaker 3 (34:55):
To is that this thing.

Speaker 6 (34:56):
But you don't have an age that someone becomes.

Speaker 9 (34:59):
A lot read.

Speaker 10 (35:00):
But why couldn't you have a society in which you
had stakeholder democracy.

Speaker 9 (35:03):
It would be the same logic.

Speaker 6 (35:05):
So if you're saying that we should not disenfranchise children,
why would you then disenfranchise people who are legal adults.

Speaker 10 (35:11):
When did I ever make the claim that I wanted
children to be able to vote?

Speaker 6 (35:15):
You just said that if everyone should know.

Speaker 9 (35:17):
I told you that your view is inconsistent.

Speaker 10 (35:20):
If it is the case propositionally, you say, Andrew, if
laws apply to people, they should be able to vote,
except oh, I don't know everybody's seventeen and under. That's inconsistent.
It's inconsistent and a contradiction.

Speaker 6 (35:33):
But laws do apply.

Speaker 9 (35:34):
What about the laws that don't. What about the laws
that don't.

Speaker 10 (35:37):
What about the laws where you're seventeen years old and
you could be tried as an adult?

Speaker 6 (35:41):
Well, those are to protect public freedom, I mean, but
everyone loses civil liberties when they are a danger to
the public.

Speaker 10 (35:47):
But rute, everyone, Do you understand that you're making a
contradiction when you say, if laws should apply at all.
All people should should have a right to vote because
they have to. They have laws which can be applied.
They can be sent to prison, was your example. That
would have to include everyone under the age of eighteen.

Speaker 6 (36:04):
But people under the age of eighteen don't go to adult.

Speaker 9 (36:06):
Yes they do all the time. Yes they do.

Speaker 10 (36:09):
That is that is you want me to give you
sources of sixteen seventeen year old tries adults and sent
to adult prisons.

Speaker 6 (36:16):
Okay, but that's like an exception for exclusively horrific crimes.
I mean those are does deal it's the law apply
to them or not to violent offenders? If you were
a threat to public safety, yes, oh.

Speaker 10 (36:27):
Really one, Then if the law applies to them and
they could be sent to jail, then by your logic,
they should be able to vote, which means your in
contradiction to those offenders.

Speaker 6 (36:34):
They are sent to juvenile detention centers until they turn eighteen,
and then they are sent to an adult prison.

Speaker 10 (36:40):
They're they're sent often to adult centers even at seventeen,
to adult prisons.

Speaker 6 (36:46):
You can be sentenced as an adult, but you can't
be sent to an adult prison at the age of sixteen.

Speaker 9 (36:51):
This would depend widely on the state that you're in.

Speaker 10 (36:53):
It's not rigorously enforced across the board like you think
there's not Like, I don't think there's federal loss which
say that. But if it were the case, I'll just
grant it. Well, I'll even grant the entire thing. It
still wouldn't matter. Laws apply to them. They can still
be sent to prison. They fit both of your criteria. Therefore,
if you say they shouldn't be able to vote your
world using contradiction, well then I think that's wrong.

Speaker 6 (37:15):
I don't believe that children should be tried as adults
until they have become adults.

Speaker 10 (37:19):
So no laws applied to children? No, Well, why shouldn't
they be able to vote?

Speaker 6 (37:23):
A threat to public safety is always applies to everyone.
Threats to public safety always apply to everyone.

Speaker 10 (37:28):
Yeah, but why shouldn't they be able to vote if
laws applied to them. That's your example.

Speaker 6 (37:31):
Laws apply to children, but they are not in practice
punished in the same way that they apply to adults.
It's applied.

Speaker 9 (37:37):
Can they be punished, of course? Now why can't they vote?

Speaker 6 (37:40):
But you have to have some way to maintain societal control.
Children aren't just allowed to do whatever the fuck they want,
because they're right.

Speaker 10 (37:45):
You need to be able to have some sort of
societal control. So this would mean necessarily disenfranchising some people,
wouldn't it.

Speaker 6 (37:53):
It would mean necessarily disenfranchising children.

Speaker 1 (37:55):
Yes.

Speaker 10 (37:56):
No, it would also mean disenfranchising prisoners. Do you want
prisoners to vote on their right to own guns.

Speaker 6 (38:00):
In a prison, not their right to own guns in
a prison?

Speaker 9 (38:03):
Well, then you're disenfranchising that.

Speaker 6 (38:05):
People who were in prison and then leave prison should
then have felons.

Speaker 9 (38:09):
But they're disenfranchised currently under the law.

Speaker 1 (38:11):
Right, No they're not.

Speaker 9 (38:12):
Yes they are. If you're a felon, you can't vote.

Speaker 6 (38:15):
Yes, Oh, well once they leave. Yes, I do think
that that's disenfranchisement, and I think Florida just rolled that back.

Speaker 10 (38:20):
Yeah, but what's wrong with disenfranchising like murderers for life?

Speaker 6 (38:24):
What's wrong with disaffranchip Well, they would be in jail
for life.

Speaker 9 (38:27):
No, no, No, they're out of jail. They're just felons,
so they can't vote.

Speaker 6 (38:30):
Well they yeah, I think the felons should be able
to vote.

Speaker 1 (38:33):
One thing.

Speaker 9 (38:33):
Should felons be able to own guns?

Speaker 4 (38:35):
No?

Speaker 9 (38:36):
Well I don't understand you. So you're just again, but
you are so inconsistent with your disenfranchising.

Speaker 6 (38:42):
Do you understand what disenfranchisement should exist so long as
someone is a threat to public safety. The reason why
prisoners are not allowed to vote who are currently in
prison is because they are a threat to public safety.

Speaker 9 (38:54):
Fifteen year olds aren't a threat to public safety.

Speaker 6 (38:56):
No, but they're children. You can't allow anyone.

Speaker 10 (38:59):
No, you can are, but rarely disenfranchised people based on
the fact that you think they're not capable of making
good voting decisions.

Speaker 1 (39:05):
Right, No, a.

Speaker 6 (39:06):
Child is legally different than an adult.

Speaker 9 (39:09):
Because they can't make.

Speaker 6 (39:10):
You can't thank the child because they can't make.

Speaker 9 (39:12):
Because they can't make good decisions.

Speaker 6 (39:14):
No, because they're legally classified as a child.

Speaker 9 (39:15):
Do you not understand because they can't make good decisions.

Speaker 6 (39:18):
Because they're two and three and four, they're not legally.

Speaker 9 (39:21):
So they can't make good decisions.

Speaker 6 (39:23):
No, they can make good decisions. But generally speaking, you
can't have children vote.

Speaker 9 (39:28):
I agree with you, you can't.

Speaker 10 (39:30):
But why is it then that if I were to
say that I only want twenty five year olds to vote,
I would be disenfranchising.

Speaker 6 (39:35):
Hey, you only want twenty five year olds to vote?

Speaker 9 (39:37):
You?

Speaker 6 (39:37):
Do you understand you only want one marriage? Voting system. Perhaps, ye,
well that's one way you want less of both adult men.

Speaker 9 (39:44):
And do you understand how my view is consistent but
yours isn't.

Speaker 10 (39:47):
Because if you were to agree with me that you
wanted like okay, Andrew, I would compromise the twenty five
year olds voting. You've now disenfranchised everyone from the ages
of eighteen through twenty four.

Speaker 6 (39:57):
If you were fall overnight, you should be able to vote.
That's my estate. If you were considered a legal adult,
if you were tried as an adult, if you are
allowed to buy a house, have a child.

Speaker 10 (40:08):
But that leads to the problem is is that that
leads to political tribalism. So like, for instance, why is
it a healthy society to have men and women who
are married voting against each other.

Speaker 9 (40:20):
That's a terrible idea.

Speaker 6 (40:21):
Because they're both Like, but if a man commits a murder,
is his what does his wife go to jail for
that crime?

Speaker 9 (40:26):
No?

Speaker 6 (40:27):
No, because they're not the same person.

Speaker 9 (40:28):

Speaker 6 (40:29):
If they're different people and they're both tried differently, and
they both have separate lives and separate bank accounts and
separate bodily and physical autonomy and they should each get
a stake in this government.

Speaker 9 (40:40):
No, well, that literally has nothing to do with what
I just asked.

Speaker 10 (40:44):
The said so real quick, so why should they be
You remember how I said yes and no to your question?

Speaker 9 (40:48):
Can you do that for me? Remember I was like
yes and just answered it. Can you actually do that
for me?

Speaker 6 (40:53):
To remember that at all?

Speaker 9 (40:54):
You literally just asked me that question.

Speaker 10 (40:56):
You said, if a husband's card off to prison, does
your wife go to prison?

Speaker 9 (40:59):
I said no, okay, can you do that for me too?

Speaker 10 (41:01):
And then give your explanation because otherwise I don't know
your actual So now I'd like to know. Do you
think it's a good idea for wives and husbands to
be able to vote against each other's interests?

Speaker 6 (41:14):
They should both have a vote.

Speaker 9 (41:15):
Yes, well, that's but they can vote against each other's interests.

Speaker 6 (41:20):
Right, it's circumstantial.

Speaker 9 (41:21):
They may not. They might, Yeah, they may not. They might.

Speaker 10 (41:23):
I agree with that, but why is it good that
that option's even there? Seems like a terrible idea because in.

Speaker 6 (41:29):
A representative democracy, everyone should be representative of the vote.

Speaker 10 (41:31):
Yeah, I get that's a descriptive truth, but you're not
telling me why that should be the case. If I
were to give you the counterclaim here, I would say,
if you had like one household voting or something like this,
it would be much more uniform and wouldn't divide families
against each other.

Speaker 9 (41:44):
And that's exactly what the vote has done.

Speaker 6 (41:46):
But they're both subject to the same legislator, like they
can both be legislated independent of each other.

Speaker 9 (41:52):
Right, well, not really.

Speaker 10 (41:54):
One cannot at that point make a decision that doesn't
affect the other one.

Speaker 6 (41:57):
Usually, yes, they can not.

Speaker 9 (41:59):
Really what I mean Roe v.

Speaker 6 (42:01):
Wade. That only affects a woman's body.

Speaker 10 (42:03):
Right now, you think that if a man is married
to a woman and she goes and aborts his baby,
that doesn't affect him.

Speaker 6 (42:09):
Of course, it doesn't affect him differently than his body, but.

Speaker 10 (42:11):
It's still That's my whole point, is that everything they
do in this household's going to affect each other. Sure,
so you wouldn't want to promote systems which divide husbands
against wives.

Speaker 6 (42:21):
But they're individuals.

Speaker 9 (42:22):
No, what does that do with anything?

Speaker 6 (42:24):
Are they the same person or not?

Speaker 9 (42:26):
This is not what's in dispute.

Speaker 6 (42:27):
Are they the same person or not? Okay, no, then
why should they not each have an individual liberty.

Speaker 10 (42:33):
What are they get to do because you don't want
to set up systems that divide them against each other.

Speaker 9 (42:37):
That's a bad idea.

Speaker 6 (42:38):
One who doesn't want to vote for you with you?

Speaker 1 (42:40):
But that's no.

Speaker 10 (42:41):
Do you understand that, like, people's preferences change over time,
and there could be various reasons in which if you
have a tribal type of mentality, like take abortion for instance,
abortion is a great one. Do you think that it's
possible that women, for instance, could hold it against their
husband and say things like.

Speaker 9 (43:00):
Do this or I'll abort your child. They could actually
do that, right?

Speaker 11 (43:04):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (43:04):
Hypothetically sure, yeah, and and have done that. That would
be yeah.

Speaker 9 (43:08):
But but you wouldn't say they couldn't go get the abortion,
would you?

Speaker 6 (43:11):
What would you say? A man?

Speaker 9 (43:12):
But hang on, answer the question first.

Speaker 10 (43:15):
What you wouldn't say that they shouldn't be allowed to
do that though, would you?

Speaker 6 (43:19):
Well, if it would be disenfranchising millions of other women
who are no, no.

Speaker 9 (43:22):
No, that's yes or no, please, you wouldn't say that.

Speaker 10 (43:25):
You you would not actually say that they should not
be allowed to get the abortion, right.

Speaker 6 (43:31):
No, I think everyone should have access to Okay, So.

Speaker 10 (43:33):
Even if it were the case that a woman right
was holding uh the man basically emotionally hostage with her
pregnancy and said do what I say or I'll get
an abortion.

Speaker 9 (43:43):
Right, you would not make any claim that she could
or could not get that abortion, would you.

Speaker 6 (43:48):
I would make a claim that what she's doing is
a moral but I wouldn't make a claim that because.

Speaker 9 (43:52):
Should anything that happened to a woman who does that?

Speaker 6 (43:55):
Yeah, I think, I mean that's blackmailing.

Speaker 9 (43:57):
It's not blackmail.

Speaker 6 (43:58):
I think on a level it's a most blackmail.

Speaker 9 (44:00):
Yeah, you should be So what should happen? Should they
go to jail?

Speaker 6 (44:03):
I mean maybe paid damages or a fine?

Speaker 9 (44:05):
A fine? How much do the fine v? Two hundred bucks?

Speaker 6 (44:10):
How much is an abortion?

Speaker 9 (44:11):
They would be the same as an abortion.

Speaker 6 (44:13):
Can I ask you a question?

Speaker 10 (44:14):
So just to get this right, Well, I want to
finish this real quick and then we can move back. Well, no,
you can't tell I finished the inquiry, but I'm going
to answer your question, but you can inquire back. I
just want to finish this inquiry. Got line of inquiry,
that's all. So just to make sure I got this right,
you have now said that the tribal voting does indeed,
a pitt husband against wife has the potential to do so, right,

(44:37):
And I've even conceded to specific examples of where it
would be in a woman's interest to vote against her
husband to have a right to do something which could
be used against him later, and then said, well, the
punishment should be like, oh, maybe she pays a fine
if something like that happens, and you, how are you
going to convince people that that's a better system than
one household voting. That's a terrible system, because.

Speaker 6 (44:57):
Then the leader of that household, of the head of
that household, has control over the right and the will
of every single person in that household. You're fundamentally denying
people free will. You're not allowed to.

Speaker 9 (45:06):
Fair because of the denying of free will.

Speaker 6 (45:09):
Because if they're both legislated by the same government and
one of them has no say and who is elected
into that government, but still.

Speaker 9 (45:17):
Because you're still they still have free will, but.

Speaker 6 (45:19):
You're still impacted by loss.

Speaker 10 (45:21):
So what you're be impacted by laws when you're seventeen,
they can't vote.

Speaker 9 (45:24):
You have a consistency issue same.

Speaker 6 (45:26):
Extent as an eighteen year old, not.

Speaker 9 (45:27):
At the same extent they can have it to the
same extent as an eighteen year old in.

Speaker 6 (45:31):
Very rare exceptions, but they can then, so you're disenfranchising people.
Look at you, you're around the fringe. You're fighting on
an exception. We're talking about the general population.

Speaker 10 (45:39):
Even in the general populations, I'm not talking about so
let's start with it.

Speaker 6 (45:43):
I'm talking about school.

Speaker 9 (45:44):
Shoot.

Speaker 10 (45:44):
I don't think it's generally speaking good idea to let
eighteen year olds, nineteen year olds, twenty year olds to vote,
to disenfranchise the votes of people who are politically informed,
because they're being used as a leverage voting block for elitists.
And that's what's actually happening. What's actually happening is what
you just said. You know, NGOs and lobbyists are lobbying
Congress to get various things passed, and what they do

(46:07):
is they try to leverage the votes from a tribalist
purview in order to get the things that they want. Right,
And eighteen, nineteen, twenty twenty one year olds are highly impressionable, right,
so we're twenty two, twenty three, twenty four to twenty
five year olds highly impressionable. And one way that you
could eliminate this idea that they could be gone after
by the parasitic NGOs who run things is by simply

(46:29):
limiting the ability to vote to people who have such
a political interest that they actually do social service for
up to five years, so that then we can trust
them with the right to vote.

Speaker 6 (46:41):
Okay, I have two statements. Can you let me get there?

Speaker 9 (46:43):
I'm sure.

Speaker 6 (46:44):
Okay, So here's number one.

Speaker 9 (46:47):
I agree that.

Speaker 6 (46:48):
Lobbying generally is bad. I'm not here for NGOs. I
don't think anyone really is. I mean men. The whole
point of why we don't like them is because we
want to be represented by our legislators fairly and accurately,
and we don't want it to be in the control
of a private interest group. So lobbying's bad, Yes, generally,
I think that lobbyists and NGOs are not. But what

(47:08):
I don't understand is if that's the issue, why not
ban NGOs. Why not have a platform that's standing against
NGOs and lobbyists. I think that'd be something great.

Speaker 9 (47:18):
Yes, and you do that, that'd be awesome. Yeah, So
this's a great question.

Speaker 10 (47:21):
But here's the problem, right, this is the leverage of
tribalism and why you can't really do that.

Speaker 9 (47:27):
So on social issues.

Speaker 10 (47:28):
On social issues, right, there are NGOs out there, for instance,
who have a vested interest in abortions being legal. Right,
this goes out into the social ethos. And now we're
battling over the social issue. We have become tribal. Right,
we become tribal. Then you have NGOs who battle against it,
let's say this social issue. They also are making a

(47:49):
ton of money off of the counter battle. Let's say, yeah,
also utilizing political tribalism. The whole idea here is deviceive tribalisms.
What enables NGOs to begin with, They make a ton
of money off of especially off of race hustling and dei.

Speaker 6 (48:04):
So then again, why not just ban NGOs and lobbyists. Yeah,
you can't allow everyone to still have a vote in
a representative.

Speaker 9 (48:10):
I'm giving you the description.

Speaker 6 (48:11):
It's hilarious that you keep calling democracy tribalism.

Speaker 10 (48:15):
It leads to it leads to tribalism. Yeah yeah, but
I mean full democracy leads to tribalism.

Speaker 9 (48:20):
Is nowhere around it? Yeah exactly. Yeah.

Speaker 10 (48:23):
So to sports suports, why would you ban sports.

Speaker 9 (48:28):
That has that's the total nonsense or it makes no sense.

Speaker 6 (48:31):
Why would you ban a a huge percentage of the population.

Speaker 10 (48:34):
From voting, because I would want to avoid political tribalism
so that elitis can't exploit low information voters, which they
do right now in order to enslave the planet.

Speaker 6 (48:45):
So you're basically saying that people are too stupid to
have the right to marry. Yes, that's tom dude.

Speaker 9 (48:51):
Don't you agree with that?

Speaker 6 (48:52):
Yeah, of course I think people are stupid.

Speaker 9 (48:55):
What are you arguing with me about. I want to
write the vote.

Speaker 6 (48:58):
Then I should give them the right to vote.

Speaker 9 (49:00):
But that's but listen, think about what you just said.

Speaker 10 (49:02):
Yeah, dude, I agree that people are too stupid to vote,
but give them the right to vote anyway.

Speaker 6 (49:06):
I don't think people are too stupid to vote.

Speaker 10 (49:08):
Why so, they're too stupid to function, But they're smart
than you think. That people who go and generally cast
a ballot are high information voters or they barely even
know what the hell they're talking about.

Speaker 6 (49:20):
I mean, do you have a statistic on how many
of them are?

Speaker 10 (49:23):
Yeah, you could do street polls. A lot of people
have no idea what's even going on with the issues.
A lot of people are just bust to poll boosts.
They get bribed to do it. This happens on both
sides of the aisle. Like, how many times have you
seen canvassing campaigns who go out there and they're canvassing,
they knock on doors that people don't even know what
the hell they're talking about.

Speaker 6 (49:40):
So what you think we should do an IQ test
for everyone to have that.

Speaker 10 (49:42):
That's been suggested, right, But I have a better plan
than an IQ test. I would not disenfranchise a person
from being able to vote because they have like an
average IQ. What I would do is disenfranchise a person
to vote if they were low information. One way I
could find out if they were really politically motivated is
if they sacrificed years of their lives to the state

(50:03):
in order to get that.

Speaker 9 (50:03):
Right to vote.

Speaker 6 (50:04):
So you want to punish people for being stupid.

Speaker 10 (50:06):
Uh no, I just don't want them to nullify well
informed votes from people who are smart.

Speaker 9 (50:12):
And on the issues and understand the issues.

Speaker 6 (50:15):
But taking away someone's vote would be punishing them in
a sense.

Speaker 10 (50:17):
It's not punishing them, it's actually stopping them from punishing
themselves and the rest of society because they're easily exploited
by social elites.

Speaker 6 (50:26):
That's fair, I mean, but why not then just target education, Like,
why not?

Speaker 10 (50:30):
Then we spend five percent of the entire GDP of
the United States on education's the highest anywhere in the world,
and we have some of the dumbest people on planet Earth.

Speaker 9 (50:40):
Our literacy rate is barely you know what the literacy
rate is. It's trash.

Speaker 10 (50:46):
And we spend five percent, the biggest GDP on planet Earth.
We spent five total percent of our GDP on education.
And you think that education is going to solve the
problem of the low information issue.

Speaker 6 (50:57):
Is that people who are stupid help them be smarter.

Speaker 10 (51:00):
There's a lot of that is a mixture of genes
and environment and nourishment and all sorts of different things.

Speaker 9 (51:06):
It's like, you can't this a.

Speaker 10 (51:07):
Whole progressive idea, this whole stupid progressive idea of like
you just can just educate people into whatever it is.
It's like, now you really can't. Like there's a lot
of people who are just gonna be fucking janitors.

Speaker 9 (51:23):
Okay, there's a.

Speaker 12 (51:24):
Lot of yeah, Okay, there's a lot of people who
are just gonna be fucking janitors, and who are just
gonna be fucking toilet bowl cleaners, and who are just
gonna be fucking bartenders and are really not meant to
build fucking rocket ships.

Speaker 6 (51:39):
Okay, no, but there's still subject to laws.

Speaker 1 (51:41):
Yeah, you know, but it's just a fact.

Speaker 6 (51:45):
If I want free will, and they want and you
want free will, and we deserve the right to vote
the natives, you're.

Speaker 10 (51:50):
Eliminating free will by this, you are you're protecting the
rest of society from low information information voters destroying their lives.

Speaker 1 (51:59):
Like, do you think really?

Speaker 9 (52:00):
Let me ask you this. Let me ask you you
were to, Yeah, but you're not really doing that.

Speaker 1 (52:05):
What you were doing.

Speaker 6 (52:06):
A vote is an exercise and free will.

Speaker 9 (52:07):
Let me ask you this.

Speaker 10 (52:08):
If you had to choose right for your family, sure,
and you knew that, you could move them to a
place where there was a bunch of people who were
highly informed on political processes in the local community, or
you can move to a place where people didn't give
a shit.

Speaker 9 (52:23):
Right, which place would you prefer them to be?

Speaker 6 (52:25):
I would prefer them to the higher.

Speaker 9 (52:26):
Of course, right at the place where the people are
the most informed.

Speaker 6 (52:29):
Speaking was my mother's calment here as career. Sorry mom, movie.

Speaker 10 (52:33):
Now, if if you were able to if these people
were able to cast votes and nullify all of the
votes if you high information voters, right, wouldn't it actually
be better for them and for you to disenfranchise their
voting so that you guys could actually vote on political
and policy issues that made sense.

Speaker 6 (52:52):
Well, I don't think that stupid people are nullifying all
of the votes of smart people.

Speaker 9 (52:57):
Really, I think about what you just said.

Speaker 10 (53:00):
Can you think about what you just do you think
there's more stupid people or.

Speaker 9 (53:04):
Smart people in this country?

Speaker 3 (53:07):
Yeah?

Speaker 9 (53:07):
That's probably okay.

Speaker 12 (53:08):
So you really don't think stupid people are nullifying the
votes of smart.

Speaker 6 (53:11):
People on a certain level. Yeah, At the same time,
they still deserve free will.

Speaker 9 (53:16):
I can't they still have free will?

Speaker 1 (53:18):
They don't. You're voting.

Speaker 9 (53:20):
Voting is a privilege.

Speaker 10 (53:23):
If you go to Australia and you commit a crime,
can you go to jail in Australia? Yeah, but you
can't vote in Australia. Right, So you see how that
makes no sense? Like what you're saying makes no sense.

Speaker 6 (53:33):
Travel to another country and endanger people like.

Speaker 10 (53:36):
That's you're not even endangering people. If you're just like
drunken public you can be arrested.

Speaker 6 (53:41):
That is to public safety, public intoxication.

Speaker 9 (53:44):
That doesn't mean you're going to actually do anything wrong, right, but.

Speaker 6 (53:46):
You could, Yeah, I drunken people are habitually.

Speaker 10 (53:50):
Or you could break or you can break some public ordinance. Right,
you could break some public ordinance you didn't know about.
Like you're on a beach, right and you're in your.

Speaker 9 (53:58):
Shorts and it was supposed to be t shorts and
shorts you know, something like this.

Speaker 6 (54:01):
We have a breaking public ordinance that doesn't lead to jails.

Speaker 10 (54:04):
It does if you don't pay the fine, well, then
you should being the body borne, you see what I mean? Though,
So you are subject to those laws, and you are
subject to imprisonment based on those laws.

Speaker 6 (54:11):
Eve.

Speaker 9 (54:12):
If that's the case, you can't vote in those countries.

Speaker 6 (54:14):
Okay, but you're not a citizen of that country. You're
still a citizen of this country. If you are, my
whole point of film, live here and you are subject
to the laws of this country for your entire life
from yeah to death.

Speaker 10 (54:24):
Yeah, why do you want Why do you want dumb
people to disenfranchise your well informed vote?

Speaker 9 (54:29):
That makes no sense.

Speaker 10 (54:30):
Not only that you say that, you're actually emboldening them
with their free will. Right, It's like that's so silly
because ultimately these people who are politically low information.

Speaker 9 (54:40):
They're so low information you're allowing them to get taken
advantage of.

Speaker 6 (54:43):
Of course, I don't want dumb people to disenfranchise my vote,
but I don't think that the solution to that is
a one marriage voting system, or you have to do
public service for five years.

Speaker 9 (54:52):
Give me an alternative.

Speaker 6 (54:53):
You can't dumb people do that too, Like, couldn't a
dumb person just do some fucking community service for five
years and then get paid. I mean, like they're some
people in the army.

Speaker 9 (55:01):
Listen.

Speaker 10 (55:01):
I agree with you that there can be some stupid
people who get through the system, but they're.

Speaker 9 (55:05):
Not going to be probably low information.

Speaker 10 (55:08):
You're not going to go through five years of civil
service like that for the purpose of being able to
vote and be low information, or you wouldn't do it.

Speaker 9 (55:15):
You have an interest, That's what the whole point is.

Speaker 6 (55:18):
Well, I mean, if you're housing and your food is
paid for, I think there are a lot of people
who'd be interested in that. The Army, I mean, that's
like exactly the Army.

Speaker 9 (55:25):
You have to take the Army.

Speaker 10 (55:26):
You have take an ASPAB test and you have to
score x amount of a score in order to even
be placed in those things.

Speaker 6 (55:32):
Big Dog, My boyfriend's a vet. He talks about some
dumb motherfuckers in the.

Speaker 10 (55:35):
Arm Sure, there's dumb people in the army, but so
they would be to qualify for certain jobs you can't
be and for civil service or something like.

Speaker 9 (55:42):
This, you can do intelligence tests or things like.

Speaker 6 (55:44):
You're basically saying there should be an IQ test and
only those who would like to be civil service.

Speaker 9 (55:49):
If you're past that IQ test, Well, I.

Speaker 10 (55:50):
Think you should probably implement an IQ test for the
military too, which they do. Yeah, I mean but they do,
but they do unless it's in war time and they're like, okay,
well we just you just need a body in here,
and then they'll grab anybody off the street.

Speaker 6 (56:05):
But yeah, can we ask about right now? I want
to come from that. Of course, do you do i
Q tests for the military?

Speaker 9 (56:15):
Wait?

Speaker 4 (56:16):
You you want, boyfriend? Sure, wait, just go around that.

Speaker 10 (56:22):
Yeah, there are people who are there who are dumb,
that's true, but they if you can't it's kind of
like I've heard of that. It's called a Cap five waiver, right,
they give them a Cat five waver.

Speaker 11 (56:39):
In terms of like people in the army and IQ tests,
like I've taken the ASBAB. It is not a very
difficult test, and a lot of people get their asbabs
taken for them. I knew guys in the Army who
were like medically diagnosable with mental deficiencies, and we're still
in the Army doing jobs that in the theory required
a certainmental faculty.

Speaker 10 (56:57):
Sure, yeah, the system can get gamed, but those are exceptions,
it's not the rule.

Speaker 4 (57:02):
I wouldn't really go that far, to be honest with you.
And then also in terms of.

Speaker 10 (57:06):
Your you don't think the majority of people are stupid
or in the army are stupid, do you?

Speaker 11 (57:11):
I think there are a great number of people who
join the army because they want a place to live
and food, which is the system you just described, and
that's pretty much independent.

Speaker 10 (57:19):
They seem to be joining the army based around patriotism,
the ability to get paid, the ability to do things
like that.

Speaker 9 (57:25):
What's that the army? I was in the Army for
a very limited amount of time years and years ago.

Speaker 4 (57:29):
How long was that very limited amount of time If.

Speaker 9 (57:32):
It wasn't very about a year? About a year?

Speaker 4 (57:34):
So what happened?

Speaker 9 (57:35):
It doesn't It doesn't matter what happened. But we're talking
about service man, what about it?

Speaker 11 (57:40):
So you want to disenfranchise people based on military service.

Speaker 4 (57:43):
I actually know why what.

Speaker 9 (57:45):
Are you talking about?

Speaker 10 (57:46):
How would I disenfranchise I'm based on military service. It
would be the opposite, requiring people to know it wouldn't
require them to serve the army.

Speaker 9 (57:55):
Literally didn't say that.

Speaker 11 (57:56):
I'm sorry.

Speaker 9 (57:57):
Yeah, yeah, I literally didn't say that.

Speaker 1 (57:59):
Thank you.

Speaker 9 (58:02):
Okay.

Speaker 6 (58:03):
So now we've established that people in the army can
very much be stupid.

Speaker 9 (58:07):
So nobody ever disputed you can have stupid people in
the army.

Speaker 1 (58:10):
Okay.

Speaker 6 (58:10):
So again we're trying to go my question. We're trying
to figure out so let's see if we can work
in terms of yeah, those who are participating in some
sort of civil service.

Speaker 10 (58:20):
Yeah, so you would have some type of civil service, right,
a person would participate in for at least five years
five years.

Speaker 9 (58:27):
Yes, unpaid? Yes, unpaid.

Speaker 6 (58:30):
That's ridiculous.

Speaker 10 (58:31):
Why do you think that the person who participated in
it for five years unpaid would really want to be
politically informed by the end of that Yeah, maybe maybe not.

Speaker 6 (58:41):
Yeah, I mean five years of not having like that's
five years of like housing is.

Speaker 9 (58:45):
Paid for service guarantees citizenship.

Speaker 6 (58:49):
So can I ask who's paying for five years of
millions of people participating in a.

Speaker 10 (58:54):
Civil Well, chances would be pretty good it wouldn't be millions,
or at least not hundreds of millions of people pitting
in such a system.

Speaker 6 (59:01):
A very limit the voting block in this country. Do
less than There's four hundred and thirty million people in
this country, and you like to limit it three hundred
and thirty million, hundreds of millions.

Speaker 10 (59:10):
It's three hundred and thirty million in the United States,
I think three hundred and thirty six million or something.

Speaker 6 (59:13):
Regardless, you would still like to limit it to I misspoke,
my bad, but you would still like to limit it
to less than you would like to limit it to
hundreds of thousands of people. Yeah, you think it's fair
for hundreds of thousands of speak people to speak on
behalf of three hundred and sixty million people.

Speaker 9 (59:27):
Do you think it's fair right now to have one
hundred senators do that?

Speaker 6 (59:31):
No, but we still vote for the senators.

Speaker 9 (59:32):
Yeah. Do you really think you're getting they don't you?
Do you think you're really getting political voted? Wait?

Speaker 10 (59:39):
Do you think you're really getting political representation? Inside of
a state like New York with two people. I don't
live in New York, I know, but inside the state
of New York, do you really think the state of
New York is getting adequate political representation on Capitol Hill
with two fucking people?

Speaker 6 (59:56):
That's why you have the Senate in the House and
in the House two.

Speaker 10 (59:59):
People who are your sener You really think one hundred
people are representing three hundred and thirty million people. At
the very top, it's one person who's representing three hundred
and thirty million people.

Speaker 6 (01:00:11):
Are you advocating that we shouldn't have government?

Speaker 1 (01:00:13):
No.

Speaker 10 (01:00:13):
What I'm saying to you is that, like, it's very
silly for me to look at an argument like you're
making and say, oh my god, one hundred thousand people
are going to be in charge or two hundred thousand
people are going to be in charge. Like, ultimately one
person's in charge. So ultimately one person's in.

Speaker 6 (01:00:26):
Charge, but there's still checks and balance. Is that one
person is in the.

Speaker 9 (01:00:29):
King, there still would be checks and balances with limited
or in the guard there's still checks and balances with
limited voting.

Speaker 6 (01:00:35):
Yeah, but we still do not get to decide who
is in our legislator as a voting body, we do
not get to decide who.

Speaker 10 (01:00:40):
You would still have people from within your various communities
who would be voters, and they would decide who it
is that went to represent you on Capitol Hill.

Speaker 6 (01:00:49):
That sounds very expensive and very pointless if I'm being honest.

Speaker 9 (01:00:51):
How is that expensive? Okay?

Speaker 10 (01:00:53):
Fine, And if you want to do that, there's another
way you could do this too. If you didn't want
to do like the civil service way, you could do
one vote per household. That would limit that, that would
limit the voting significantly.

Speaker 9 (01:01:05):
Hang on, okay, and.

Speaker 12 (01:01:06):
It would be not expensive at all. Okay, there's even
another way that you can do it on top of that.

Speaker 10 (01:01:11):
All right, right, but let's just start with like one
household voting, same thing you can eliminate whatever this like
perceived cost is that you have another thing you could
do is just eliminate anybody being able to vote until
they reach the same age that they could become president
of the United States.

Speaker 6 (01:01:27):
Is that not thirty five?

Speaker 9 (01:01:28):
Mm h?

Speaker 6 (01:01:29):
So you think that everyone under thirty five should lose
the right to vote.

Speaker 9 (01:01:31):
Why shouldn't everyone under thirty five? Why shouldn't everybody under
thirty five be able to be the president of the
United States. Well, because they don't have the But there's
why answer the question.

Speaker 6 (01:01:44):
Because they do not yet have the experience of the
politics to run an entire Yeah exactly, okay, Andrew. But
just because you can't run an entire country doesn't mean
that you should still not have the right to have
one singular vote. It's one vote.

Speaker 9 (01:01:58):
What are you talking about.

Speaker 6 (01:02:00):
Yes, you can't be the president, but you are still
susceptible to the laws. You can have a kid at
thirty five, you can have a house at.

Speaker 10 (01:02:05):
Thirty five, So what does that do with anything, but
you can't be president?

Speaker 1 (01:02:11):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (01:02:11):
Legislatively, yeah, below thirty five. From eighteen to thirty four,
all of these people are impacted at the same level.

Speaker 9 (01:02:19):
No, they're not all impacted at the same level.

Speaker 6 (01:02:21):
In fact, I would say, can they all go to
jail for committing a crime?

Speaker 9 (01:02:24):
Yes? I would say the opposite there.

Speaker 10 (01:02:25):
I would say, like people between the ages of eighteen
and like twenty five are mostly living at home, right,
and their parents are the ones who are mostly impacted
by legislation, not them and their parents and their parents
should actually probably have more say than them. Their parents
actually have more autonomy than they do because their dependents
on them.

Speaker 9 (01:02:41):
Right, completely dependent upon them.

Speaker 10 (01:02:43):
It's like, if I look at the trends, it seems
to me like if you eliminated from eighteen to twenty
five or from twenty five to thirty five, if the
founders didn't think you should be president of the United States,
so you were with thirty five.

Speaker 9 (01:02:55):
I don't think they wanted you to vote either.

Speaker 10 (01:02:57):
And you know what, that's why it was never law
voting whites are are affirmed.

Speaker 1 (01:03:00):
This is the old shit.

Speaker 9 (01:03:01):
That's not an argument. That's not an argument. Well, I
mean the reason why give me the argument?

Speaker 6 (01:03:06):
You're young? You're old, Like you are not applicable to
this law.

Speaker 9 (01:03:10):
What did that have to do with anything?

Speaker 6 (01:03:11):
You're trying to govern a group of people that you
are not a member of. So that's the issue. So
what everyone should be representative government?

Speaker 9 (01:03:17):
So how old do you think the average person who's
in congresses? Hell? Old, and they're representing all of you.

Speaker 1 (01:03:23):
I need that.

Speaker 10 (01:03:24):
So you want you think that like nineteen year olds
are going to be better governing than sixty year olds.

Speaker 6 (01:03:29):
No, but I think I don't think an eighty year
old would be a representative government.

Speaker 1 (01:03:33):
Yeah, eighty year.

Speaker 9 (01:03:34):
Olds are dying in their depends, they're not governing.

Speaker 12 (01:03:37):
What do you mean, Joe sleepy Joe who is in
his eighties now has cancer and he's not president because
he went off the deep.

Speaker 9 (01:03:46):
End, I know.

Speaker 6 (01:03:47):
And Trump is in his seventies, your eighties.

Speaker 10 (01:03:50):
Your presidents, your presidents and congressmen are running like between
the late forties to fifties to sixties. You don't really
think that replace them with twenty year old it's a
good idea.

Speaker 1 (01:04:01):
Do we that?

Speaker 6 (01:04:02):
I don't think we should replace them with twenty year olds?

Speaker 9 (01:04:04):
But why not? Wait? Why not? Why not?

Speaker 6 (01:04:07):
Well, they'd have to be elected first, Yeah, I.

Speaker 10 (01:04:08):
Know, But even if they were, don't you think that
would still probably not be the worst or that wouldn't
be a good idea if they.

Speaker 6 (01:04:14):
Were elected through a democratic representative democracy.

Speaker 10 (01:04:18):
Don't you think they would do a worse job though,
than forty fifty sixty year olds.

Speaker 6 (01:04:21):
Well, we don't know who it is. You can't just
say universally, I think a twenty year old would be
worse if they are elected democratically.

Speaker 10 (01:04:28):
Well, why do you think our founders thought that thirty
five year old years old was the minimum.

Speaker 6 (01:04:32):
I think the founders thought thirty five should be the
minimum because you need experience in government to be the
head of the government.

Speaker 10 (01:04:39):
No experience in government is even required to become the
president of the United States.

Speaker 4 (01:04:43):
Zero sure.

Speaker 9 (01:04:45):
So why this age of thirty five?

Speaker 6 (01:04:47):
Well, because you have to have lived in this country
for long enough to understand it on a basic level.

Speaker 10 (01:04:51):
Because because they also thought you just didn't have the
requisite experience probably in life to govern at all.

Speaker 6 (01:04:57):
That's fair to govern the entire country.

Speaker 9 (01:04:58):
I would to govern anybody. No, yeah, really, yeah.

Speaker 12 (01:05:03):
Really I think So why is it that they didn't
let people vote? Why do you think they didn't want
people to vote?

Speaker 6 (01:05:09):
I mean, dude, they were kind of fucked up. I mean,
do you really want to base all of your beliefs
on the Founding fathers?

Speaker 9 (01:05:15):
They owned slaves, like so, so whole world owned slaves.

Speaker 6 (01:05:19):
Just because a lot of people do something doesn't mean
it's right.

Speaker 10 (01:05:21):
Yeah, we weren't some of the first to take people
out of slaveryds, especially the West England. Friends, West, then
that's the West England. That's not America, that's the West,
which is what I said, the West.

Speaker 6 (01:05:34):
You said we were the first, as in America.

Speaker 9 (01:05:36):
The West is what I said.

Speaker 6 (01:05:37):
I mean, I think we're the same country as England.

Speaker 9 (01:05:39):
Sure, yeah, but we're part of the West, right like England.

Speaker 6 (01:05:43):
We are not run by the same government as England.

Speaker 10 (01:05:45):
Yeah, but we're part of the West. And I said,
the West is the ones who, uh, you can't.

Speaker 6 (01:05:51):
Take credit for something another country did.

Speaker 10 (01:05:53):
Dog Well, first of all, many of the people who
came here came here from England.

Speaker 9 (01:05:58):
Right.

Speaker 10 (01:05:59):
The idea of the repudiation of slavery came from those
very same dogmas.

Speaker 9 (01:06:05):
So so like, I don't know what you're talking about.

Speaker 6 (01:06:08):
It for thirty Okay, dude, you've just spent the last
hour trying to defend the belief that that both sexist
should be somehow disenfranchised from voting this whole one per household,
the one marriage system. And I think fundamentally you have
not been able to create an.

Speaker 9 (01:06:23):
Appeal to closing statements here.

Speaker 6 (01:06:26):
Well, because we're supposed to be debating feminism, we never.

Speaker 10 (01:06:27):
Even need to Well, this would be a key a
key component to this actually, but I'm actually fine with
this if you want to move it on to that,
like you want to a single argument.

Speaker 6 (01:06:37):
The argument is that people should be legislatively represented and
allowed to vote.

Speaker 10 (01:06:42):
Yeah, that's an assertion. That's just an assertion, not an argument.
You just that's just like I think.

Speaker 6 (01:06:47):
So the argument is that people are impacted by the
laws the legislators create, then they should have a say
in who those legislators are ye whether it's the smallest.

Speaker 10 (01:06:56):
But that's a performative contradiction because you said that people
who are affected by laws who a don't live here
or b are younger than a certain threshold should be disenfranchised.

Speaker 6 (01:07:05):
Contradiction. It's the point of democracy, Lily should be represented
by a representative.

Speaker 9 (01:07:10):
I need you to understand this logically, that you're performing logically.

Speaker 6 (01:07:14):
Because it's a logical fallacy. You are arguing a logical policy.

Speaker 9 (01:07:17):
What's the fallacy.

Speaker 6 (01:07:18):
The fallacy is that you're trying to essentially stop stupid
people from voting.

Speaker 9 (01:07:22):
But makes not a fallacy. That's not a logical fallacy.

Speaker 6 (01:07:26):
You didn't let me finish the sentence. You're trying to
stop stupid people from voting by making it so that
less people can vote, which is in turn taking away
the power of the voter.

Speaker 9 (01:07:37):
What's the fallacy, Well.

Speaker 6 (01:07:39):
You're trying to empower voters by taking away vote.

Speaker 9 (01:07:41):
How is that a logical fallacy?

Speaker 6 (01:07:43):
You can't empower voters by taking away their power?

Speaker 9 (01:07:47):
What? How am I trying to empower voters?

Speaker 6 (01:07:50):
Are you that you're trying to combat tribalism and that
you want smart people's votes, empowering voters? I thought that's
why you're against NGOs, lobbyists, bribes, You.

Speaker 9 (01:08:01):
Want to empower it. I don't know what you're talking about.
I just don't want the cous I don't even know
what you're talking about.

Speaker 10 (01:08:05):
What I'm saying to you is that if you want
to eliminate tribalism, you don't want to have nothing but
an unlimited amount of people voting, where NGOs can mark
to the stupid people and bid them to their will
and now have that entire bracket for whatever it is
their political agendas are.

Speaker 6 (01:08:21):
So again, why not just get rid of NGOs? Why
is oh my god, NGOs are a problem?

Speaker 9 (01:08:25):
What you like, sir? People can vote?

Speaker 10 (01:08:27):
Gee, I'd never thought of that. Why don't we get
rid of NGOs? The people who are utilizing tribalism so
that they exist? Boy, I wish I had thought of that.

Speaker 6 (01:08:35):
You're utilizing tribalism.

Speaker 9 (01:08:37):
No, they're utilizing tribalism, so they exist.

Speaker 6 (01:08:39):
Okay, but you're a political pundit. You have the power
to help people.

Speaker 1 (01:08:43):
Uh huh.

Speaker 6 (01:08:44):
Why not promote a stance that is actually useful to
them instead of trying to take away their vote.

Speaker 9 (01:08:49):
Great, A stance that would be actually useful to them
would be having.

Speaker 10 (01:08:52):
Their well informed votes not nullified by non well informed
voters of what you believe and I believe are more
than the well informed voters.

Speaker 9 (01:09:00):
That's exactly something I could do to help everybody.

Speaker 6 (01:09:03):
But you're not helping everyone because stupid people still live here.
So what they still have a right to exist in
a society.

Speaker 9 (01:09:09):
Who's taking the right to exists in a society? Nobody?

Speaker 6 (01:09:13):
Yes, you are, because if they're still held accountable to
the same laws, but now have no right or vote
or say, and who is enacting those laws and who
is representing them in.

Speaker 9 (01:09:24):
Government like seventeen year olds?

Speaker 4 (01:09:27):
Final statement for their children?

Speaker 9 (01:09:29):
Okay? Final statement is like her position is a contradiction.

Speaker 10 (01:09:32):
She says everybody should be able to vote inside of
a country where they are governed by the laws. The
problem is is that, then she says, all sorts of
people who follow to the criteria of being supported by
laws shouldn't be able to vote.

Speaker 9 (01:09:48):
It's literally a performative contradiction.

Speaker 10 (01:09:51):
Then she moves to my view and agrees with my
view that mostly that stupid people outnumber smart voters, and
when you're talking about or ill informed voters, that NGOs
often take advantage of them, or I mean always take
advantage of them. She literally agrees with all of this,
but somehow still thinks it's a better idea to allow
this to continue because my free I don't know, she

(01:10:14):
never really gave an argument for that.

Speaker 9 (01:10:15):
I don't really actually know why.

Speaker 6 (01:10:17):
Magic you can resonse, Okay, I mean I get that
you don't understand why, and I get that you don't
understand my argument, and I'm sorry. I hope one day
you do. But what I will say is generally, yes,
it's annoying that stupid people are allowed to vote, even
though they sometimes make poor choices and fight against their
own self interest. Yes, we don't like that. Yes we

(01:10:38):
don't agree. We do agree that lobbyists and NGOs have
way too much power in setting presidents for lass, those
are both things that we mutually agree upon. However, I
do not think that it is fair to create a
limited democracy then in turn disenfranchises voters on the basis
of being stupid. I don't think that there is any

(01:10:59):
way to prack to clear enact that. I don't understand
why we were.

Speaker 9 (01:11:04):
Doing at the Constitutional Convention. That's how you would do it.

Speaker 6 (01:11:09):
And you don't think that the millions of people who
now have lost the right to vote, would they just
they'd be like, okay.

Speaker 9 (01:11:15):
Well they wouldn't have a choice.

Speaker 6 (01:11:19):
I mean, sure, protests, riots, there's all sorts of ways
that people have fought against a government. I mean would
like you're basically trying to call the country's bluff on
whether or not they care about having the right to vote,
which I think is just stupid. I think personally it's pointless,
and I think that the function of a democracy is
to make sure that everyone who has to abide by
these laws is represented in government. Is that flawed?

Speaker 9 (01:11:42):
Yes, that's even true.

Speaker 1 (01:11:45):
Did I interact.

Speaker 4 (01:11:47):
Finishing thing?

Speaker 6 (01:11:48):
Then we're going to Okay, so anyway back to my statement, Yes,
this government is flawed. Yes, NGOs have too much power.
Yes it's annoying when stupid people do stupid things. But
at the same time. The right to vote is a
human right under a representative democracy in the United States
of America. To take that away from voters is not
the answer to creating a more educated voting body. Like

(01:12:12):
just genuinely, it's just not all right.

Speaker 4 (01:12:14):
Here's what we're gonna do. We have a couple chats
that are going to come through.

Speaker 9 (01:12:17):
Guys.

Speaker 8 (01:12:18):
If you want to interact with the stream, the show,
the debaters, two hundred dollars tts.

Speaker 4 (01:12:24):
And also if you're enjoying the stream, kindly like the video.

Speaker 8 (01:12:27):
If you want to support Venmo, cash, app, whatever, pod
without these platforms taking their cut. We're also live on Twitch,
dot TV, slash whatever, if you want to drop us
a follow in the prime sub. Also, we have some
merchhopped all whatever, dot com, Discord, dot GG, slash whatever.

Speaker 4 (01:12:40):
We have a message here from one moment.

Speaker 6 (01:12:44):
Here he paid nine hundred Wait, he paid ninety nine
dollars to send a message.

Speaker 8 (01:12:48):
Yeah, we have this one coming in from Peacecraft. The
audio is muted, or actually it's not muted. I'm not
sure why that's not coming through. I have a question
for Rick James. If you hadn't eaten breakfast this morning,
how would you feel.

Speaker 4 (01:13:06):
I think that's for you. How would you feel if
you hadn't?

Speaker 9 (01:13:09):
How would you feel if I had any breakfast this morning?

Speaker 6 (01:13:12):
I don't, just how would I feel?

Speaker 4 (01:13:14):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (01:13:15):
Hungry? Probably?

Speaker 9 (01:13:17):
Okay?

Speaker 8 (01:13:18):
All right, and we have a message here from Jason
Cassel related to the military stuff.

Speaker 3 (01:13:23):
Thank you.

Speaker 13 (01:13:24):
Jason takes some castle to NAT to two hundred dollars,
appreciate it.

Speaker 4 (01:13:27):
Thank you.

Speaker 13 (01:13:27):
My boyfriend is an s FAB waiver. You can't get
someone else to take the test. You will have to
be verified with ID, fingerprints, birth certificate, et cetera.

Speaker 4 (01:13:39):
All so you take it during maps, all right, Thank
you Jason for that.

Speaker 9 (01:13:44):
And that's how I remember it. I remember taking it
during maps.

Speaker 6 (01:13:47):
In your singular year in the army. How did you
get off with one year?

Speaker 9 (01:13:51):
Well, people get hurt. Oh that sucks, that's what happens.

Speaker 6 (01:13:55):
You didn't go back.

Speaker 8 (01:13:55):
We have red Fox here in the military nineteen years
and run maps. All applicants take an IQ test. It
is called the ASVAB, and we take significant steps to
catch fraud the Armed services on average.

Speaker 10 (01:14:07):
Well, I agree that there could be stupid people who
are there. I'm just saying that there are standards which
are in place. That's one and two. I remember specifically
taking it when I was in maps.

Speaker 6 (01:14:16):
So how hard would the IQ test be for voters?

Speaker 9 (01:14:22):
On your whole lie, I didn't really advocate for an
IQ test.

Speaker 10 (01:14:25):
It would just be I would You would just be
looking for, like, if somebody was going to enter into service,
that they had at least the IQ capacity to do it.

Speaker 9 (01:14:33):
So they we're like mentally retarded.

Speaker 6 (01:14:34):
Well, I mean, isn't the whole point that we're trying
to prevent stupid people from voting? That's your whole No.

Speaker 9 (01:14:39):
No, uninformed voters from voting.

Speaker 6 (01:14:42):
Okay, so how does community service inform a voter?

Speaker 10 (01:14:45):
Well, so again you keep what you keep doing is
conflating like four different things. When I say there's here's
all of our possible options, right, and then you're like, well,
there's problems with this one. I agree, there's problems within
the confines of each of these, but there's some that
you just straight up reject and give no arguments for,
Like why is it that we can't just eliminate it

(01:15:06):
from eighteen to thirty five? If you can't be president
of the United States till you're thirty five, seems feasible
that you can't vote until you're thirty five.

Speaker 6 (01:15:13):
Well, have the laws still apply to you between eighteen
and thirty five?

Speaker 9 (01:15:16):
Yeah, so then your objection is not even to the system.

Speaker 10 (01:15:18):
Your objection is actually just still what your argument is,
which is a contradiction question.

Speaker 6 (01:15:25):
But what can a person over thirty five be an
uninformed voter?

Speaker 3 (01:15:29):
Yes or no?

Speaker 9 (01:15:30):
Yes, but it's going to be way less regular than
people who are you.

Speaker 6 (01:15:34):
How are you proving that?

Speaker 10 (01:15:36):
Just because if we look at the people who turn
out to vote right within these demographics, right, it's much
less than in the older demographics, and when they're pulled,
the people in older demographics know much more about the
issues than the people in the younger demographics.

Speaker 6 (01:15:51):
Really, yeah, I don't know my grandma g's all our
news from Facebook.

Speaker 4 (01:15:53):
We have a message here. Many fresh question for Naima.
Did I say right? Oh my god, Naima?

Speaker 8 (01:15:58):
Okay, just question she ever actually studied Plato's Ship of State?
What's an actually intellectual philosophical calendar point against this biggest
issue with socialism and communism?

Speaker 4 (01:16:09):
Also, why are you dating your oppressor? What typical?

Speaker 8 (01:16:12):
Okay, no response there, All right, guys, if you want
to get a message in we're going to do two
hundred dollars tts. We let a couple below the threshold
just come through there. Why don't we bring it back
to feminism andrew forced.

Speaker 9 (01:16:26):
Doctrine doctrine, and so there we go.

Speaker 10 (01:16:30):
Yeah, we're fine with that, but if she takes it
down a rabbit hole, then we have to go down
the rabbit hole.

Speaker 9 (01:16:35):
So here's my argument. Let's start with defining these terms.
Can we do that?

Speaker 4 (01:16:40):
Yes?

Speaker 10 (01:16:40):
So I define feminism okay, as being a movement towards
egalitarianism or equity okay, with the stated goal of diminishing
and eventually destroying patriarchal systems.

Speaker 1 (01:17:00):
M sure.

Speaker 10 (01:17:03):
That seems to be fairly historically accurate and modernly accurate.

Speaker 6 (01:17:08):
Yes, move on towards equity goal of eliminating patriarchal systems, yes, okay,
I'll take it.

Speaker 9 (01:17:14):
Okay.

Speaker 10 (01:17:14):
So when I say the word going forward enforcer, what
I mean by that word is people who utilize inside
of society some form of force or in order to
either execute laws right or keep people safe in some capacity.

Speaker 9 (01:17:33):
That would be an enforcer. Okay.

Speaker 10 (01:17:35):
So my argument here is that men ultimately are the
enforcement arm of everybody's rights, including other men's and that
women always have to appeal to other men and so
they can't actually get rid of the patriarchy, but must
instead comply with the patriarchy.

Speaker 9 (01:17:53):
Okay, that's my argument.

Speaker 6 (01:17:58):
Do you want to repeat that for me just a
little note?

Speaker 10 (01:18:01):
Yeah, that that when basically feminists always have to appeal
to the patriarchy for rights no matter what, and so
feminism isn't even possible.

Speaker 9 (01:18:08):
It's not even a possibility.

Speaker 6 (01:18:09):
Okay, yeah, to Patrio for it. Okay, So can I
ask do you believe that free will is a privilege
or a right or a privilege? Do you believe free
will is a right or a privilege?

Speaker 9 (01:18:27):
Does free will just mean do whatever you want within.

Speaker 6 (01:18:30):
The extent that you're not hurting yourself or others or
becoming a danger to society?

Speaker 9 (01:18:35):
Well then yeah, it sure sounds like you're saying it is.

Speaker 10 (01:18:38):
I'm sorry, what then it would be trivially too true
that it would have to be If you're saying that
that means you can do whatever you want unless A, B, C,
and D, then it would have to be a privilege.

Speaker 6 (01:18:50):
Well okay, so free will, as I'm defining it, is
the right to do with you what you want. So
long as you are not infringing upon another's free will.

Speaker 9 (01:18:58):
Then it would trivially have to be a privile.

Speaker 6 (01:19:00):
It would have to be a privilege.

Speaker 10 (01:19:02):
Like by that logic, it would there would be nowhere
around it would have to be a privilege.

Speaker 6 (01:19:05):
Why would it have to be a privilege.

Speaker 10 (01:19:06):
Well, because the second you do infringe on someone's whatever.

Speaker 1 (01:19:11):
Right.

Speaker 9 (01:19:12):
Yeah, do you have free will?

Speaker 1 (01:19:15):
Well?

Speaker 6 (01:19:17):
Yes, to an extent. Okay, so free will with some limitations,
let's say, is free will with the limitation, then it's.

Speaker 9 (01:19:22):
Not free will?

Speaker 6 (01:19:23):
Well, what do you want to call it?

Speaker 1 (01:19:24):
Andrew?

Speaker 9 (01:19:24):
I mean, I just maybe will?

Speaker 6 (01:19:26):
Okay? Do you think that human will is a right
or a privilege?

Speaker 9 (01:19:36):
I'm not trying to figure out what you mean by
this human will? Like, do you think that we as
a SOCII well, maybe I can just do it this way.
I don't believe that human beings have inherent rights.

Speaker 6 (01:19:47):
Okay, thank you, there we go. Human beings have no
inherent rights.

Speaker 10 (01:19:55):
Yeah, correct, I think instead what we call rights or
actually just collective intuitions which are appealed to to force
and then force enforces them.

Speaker 6 (01:20:06):
Okay, so all law, are you trying to say that basically,
all laws are forced through force.

Speaker 9 (01:20:12):
Or just yeah.

Speaker 6 (01:20:13):
Yeah, so all laws lay.

Speaker 9 (01:20:16):
Yeah.

Speaker 10 (01:20:16):
So if you think about this, the way that I
would say is like, do you agree with me that
rights themselves are a social construction?

Speaker 9 (01:20:28):
I mean not really, So my right to own a
gun is not a social construction.

Speaker 6 (01:20:34):
Yeah, but I'm talking about free will, not like human
like what is that.

Speaker 10 (01:20:38):
I don't understand though, like you being able to act
in will, I wouldn't dispute with like you can you
can do, you can take actions with your will. But
when you say rights, you're saying that those are privileges
absent duties. That's a right, and then a duty right
would be essentially the opposite to what right is right? Yes, okay,

(01:21:02):
So these privileges that you're talking about, I think if
that's what a right is a privilege abps in a duty,
then they all seem like they're privileges.

Speaker 6 (01:21:11):
Okay, but like you don't think that.

Speaker 1 (01:21:14):
I guess.

Speaker 6 (01:21:14):
My issue with this argument is that it's claiming that
power is based solely on force, yes, which to me
seems like it's advocating on behalf of violence, I mean,
and able to enforce and maintain.

Speaker 10 (01:21:31):
Oh yeah, that's that's what force would be raw force
would be violence.

Speaker 9 (01:21:35):
Okay, so that's what it does.

Speaker 10 (01:21:37):
Like we we advocate that police be able to use
violence in order to enforce laws, right, but we.

Speaker 6 (01:21:41):
Would prefer that they avoid it, right Yeah.

Speaker 9 (01:21:43):
Like ultimately that what makes people comply the threat of violence?

Speaker 6 (01:21:48):
Right, But there are other ways to get people to comply.

Speaker 9 (01:21:51):
Now, yeah, but what if they don't?

Speaker 6 (01:21:54):
Well, I mean yes, but I feel like that's a
bit of an extreme.

Speaker 9 (01:21:57):
Like, no, it's not a bit of an extreme that
people don't come.

Speaker 6 (01:22:00):
But how does the president have power? He can't threaten violence.

Speaker 9 (01:22:04):
That's all he does. He is the commander in chief
of the United States military.

Speaker 6 (01:22:08):
He can't threaten. And so basically you believe that we
function in a society solely because if we don't, we
will be violently hurt by the military.

Speaker 10 (01:22:21):
No, I believe that what that all of your privileges
that you have in society that you're calling rights only
actually exist because of force, the idea of force and
forced doctrine, and that that is basically one hundred percent
men who provide that.

Speaker 6 (01:22:38):
Okay, so you're kind of giving this like might makes
right argument just makes.

Speaker 9 (01:22:45):
Not makes right?

Speaker 10 (01:22:46):
So no, just makes not makes right right would be
a prescriptive aught claim for morality. I'm making a descriptive claim,
which is that descriptively might.

Speaker 6 (01:22:57):
Makes So do you not believe the violence is moral?

Speaker 9 (01:23:01):
Of course not depends on the circumstance.

Speaker 6 (01:23:04):
You generally just don't believe that violence isn't moral.

Speaker 9 (01:23:06):
It depends on the circumstance.

Speaker 6 (01:23:08):
I mean violence in an attempt to control others and
use it.

Speaker 9 (01:23:12):
Again, that depends on the circumstance.

Speaker 10 (01:23:14):
I think there's plenty of times where you and I
would agree that using violence to control others is totally acceptable.

Speaker 6 (01:23:19):
I feel like violence is necessary in self defense.

Speaker 9 (01:23:21):
And no, you don't.

Speaker 10 (01:23:22):
You think that violence is completely acceptable to control prison inmates,
probably to uh, to execute certain laws and search warrants,
to do all sorts of things, violence is necessary.

Speaker 6 (01:23:32):
Again, those are both actions and self defense or defensive others.

Speaker 9 (01:23:36):
How is that violence to But it's violence to control others.

Speaker 6 (01:23:44):
Right, But it would be in defense of others.

Speaker 9 (01:23:46):
Yeah, but it's still to control others.

Speaker 6 (01:23:48):
It's in defense of others.

Speaker 9 (01:23:50):
What are those people that, like inmates don't want to
be defended?

Speaker 6 (01:23:53):
So that's what we're talking about. Well, I mean if
someone is beating another person the death.

Speaker 10 (01:23:57):
I'm sure that if it's mutual combat, they both want
to it, the guards then go and break it up.
They're definitely using violence for control, not die but fight.

Speaker 6 (01:24:06):
Okay, But if someone is beating someone else to death
and you are, but that's not.

Speaker 9 (01:24:10):
You see how you see how you negate the claim.
So you move to the next claim. Can two people
be fighting and then you use violence to break that up?

Speaker 6 (01:24:18):
Yes?

Speaker 10 (01:24:18):
Okay, great, so then you can use violence to control
people and it's perfectly acceptable.

Speaker 6 (01:24:23):
It's not acceptable though, because it's the reason it's acceptable
is because it's in defense of another person.

Speaker 10 (01:24:28):
Those people want to fight. Who are you defending if
one of them is dying or of them is one
of them is not dying, They just want to fight.
They're not dying, but they just want to fight.

Speaker 6 (01:24:39):
Okay, sure, so two prison inmates. But again, you're using
these like really really really stringently specific.

Speaker 10 (01:24:45):
Yeah, because if we go too broad and to general,
then if we hone it down, then I can negate
your stance because what you're saying doesn't actually make logical sense.

Speaker 6 (01:24:55):
But you're honing it down to a specific example that
is not representative of the entire population of the United States.
I feel like we should use an example.

Speaker 9 (01:25:03):
What is representative of the entire population, not.

Speaker 6 (01:25:06):
To prisoners who choose to fight to the death. I mean,
that's the furthest thing.

Speaker 10 (01:25:10):
But do you when you make a claim, you make
this claim, you say, Andrew, violence is only just or
your violence.

Speaker 9 (01:25:18):
Isn't justified to control groups of people.

Speaker 10 (01:25:21):
And I'm like, yeah, but you don't even really believe that,
because I can give you examples of groups of people
who you would want to control with violence and you
think is totally acceptable.

Speaker 9 (01:25:28):
And you're like, yeah, that's true.

Speaker 10 (01:25:30):
Well popting hang on, you go, yeah, that's true.

Speaker 9 (01:25:34):
But right I still now don't want to use that example.
It's like, that makes no sense. It's it's a refutation
to your position. That's why I hone in on it.

Speaker 6 (01:25:43):
Okay, So people, we know this through the constitution, essentially
relinquish their right to free will by threatening the free
will of others. That's why prisoners are allowed to go
to jail, and that is constitutionally accepted.

Speaker 9 (01:25:55):
Yes, say that. Let me make sure I got that right.
Say that again.

Speaker 6 (01:25:58):
People essentially relinquish their right to free will. The right
to walk around and be free in society as a prisoner,
because they have committed a crime that is a danger
to themselves or others and threatens the fabric of society.
So why do people go to jail? Why are crimes crimes?
Why are things that are batter?

Speaker 10 (01:26:16):
People go to jail because we force them into jail
after they commit crimes, not because they're willingly going to jail.

Speaker 6 (01:26:22):
I understand they're not willingly going to jail. But what
I'm saying is the forced relinquishment of free will in
this instance is morally acceptable because they have committed a
crime that threatens themselves or others.

Speaker 9 (01:26:33):
Yeah, I'm not disputing whether or not it's moral.

Speaker 6 (01:26:36):
That would make my point for me, though, So I'm
not trying to talk about those who have already had
their free will relinquished on the basis that they have
committed a crime that threatens themselves or others. I'm trying
to talk about people who are not criminals, who have
not relinquished their free will, who are here in this
country and deserve the right to choose what they do
with themselves and their bodies.

Speaker 10 (01:26:58):
Now, okay, well, you're making a lot of suppositions there
that I just kind of like don't agree with.

Speaker 6 (01:27:03):
So you don't think that people deserve the right to
bodily autonomy? No, what makes someone deserve the right to
body the autonomy?

Speaker 10 (01:27:11):
Well, when you say bodily autonomy, yeah, would you agree
then that a fetus has bodily autonomy?

Speaker 6 (01:27:17):
I'm talking right now about human beings?

Speaker 9 (01:27:21):
Well, I consider those human beings.

Speaker 6 (01:27:22):
I'm talking right now about people who can talk and walk,
who are independent, singular organisms.

Speaker 9 (01:27:27):
So people who are in coma's they they have no rights.

Speaker 6 (01:27:31):
Dude, you keep doing comas and prisoners and fetuses. Just
talk about a fucking person.

Speaker 9 (01:27:35):
What about that is a person?

Speaker 6 (01:27:38):
Just talk about a person who is not an exception,
who is not in a medical state of physically.

Speaker 9 (01:27:44):
But what we're trying to determine right now is the worldview.

Speaker 10 (01:27:47):
You say people deserve to have a bodily autonomy, and
then you give me the criteria for bodily autonomy, and
then I can instantly point to an example where you agree.

Speaker 1 (01:27:57):
That's me.

Speaker 6 (01:27:58):
You're trying to do what you're trying to do, You're
trying to create a gotcha so you don't have to
answer the genuine question that I'm asking.

Speaker 9 (01:28:03):
What's the genuine question you're asking?

Speaker 6 (01:28:04):
The question is do people, regardless of outliers. Does the
average person who has not come into crime, who is
not inside of another person, who is not brain dead
or in a coma, deserve bodily.

Speaker 9 (01:28:18):
Autonomy depending on what you mean by that.

Speaker 6 (01:28:21):
Bodily autonomy being defined as the ability to choose what
you do with your body so long as you are
not threatening other people's body.

Speaker 10 (01:28:30):
No, why not, because I would say that things like
laws against unliving yourself would be completely appropriate, and things
like this which would be a violation of your bodily
autonomy by your criteria.

Speaker 6 (01:28:43):
So you think that because people can't unlive themselves.

Speaker 9 (01:28:47):
No, I'm saying.

Speaker 10 (01:28:48):
You gave me the criteria for what bodily autonomy means, right,
you ask me what an objection would be against it,
and I just gave you one.

Speaker 6 (01:28:56):
Okay, So let's cut out that outlier. Do you think
that people who are not inside another person, who have
not committed a violent crime against themselves or others, and
who have not are not currently brain dead, and are
conscious and capable of perceiving the world, do you think
that those people deserve bodily autonomy.

Speaker 9 (01:29:16):
No, based on the example I just gave you.

Speaker 6 (01:29:18):
Just because people have the capacity to unlive themselves, No
one deserves bodily autonomy.

Speaker 9 (01:29:23):
By the definition that you just gave.

Speaker 10 (01:29:25):
We could not give them bodily autonomy definitionally by that definition,
because definitely by that debt definitionally by that definition. Yes,
so I could say definitionally by some other definition, but
I'm giving you the reference to your definition.

Speaker 6 (01:29:39):
We don't deserve bodily autonomy, not by.

Speaker 10 (01:29:41):
Your definition, if because that would prevent us from preventing
people from like doing suicide and things like this.

Speaker 6 (01:29:47):
So we don't deserve bodily autonomy because under my definition
of body the autonomy, we cannot prevent someone from killing
them correct, But that's not a violent act.

Speaker 9 (01:29:56):
Why that's a real violent act.

Speaker 6 (01:29:58):
Why I can't under my finish and you can't prevent
something from cutting themselves because.

Speaker 9 (01:30:03):
It would know, it would violate your rule for what
bodily autonomy is.

Speaker 6 (01:30:06):
I said, so long as you are not a threat
to yourself or others, so that includes you, So you
would relinquish your bodily autonomy if you were a threat
to yourself, then.

Speaker 10 (01:30:14):
I think that it would then just be trivially true
that you don't really mean bodily autonomy anymore, because what
you do is you say bodily autonomy with all of
these exceptions where we can violate bodily autonomy.

Speaker 6 (01:30:25):
But that's like three exceptions. It's exceptions that it's not.

Speaker 10 (01:30:28):
Like three exceptions, it's many exceptions. What about somebody who's
just like cutting themselves with a razor blade?

Speaker 9 (01:30:33):
Can we stop them?

Speaker 10 (01:30:34):
What about a person who just says that they want
to cut off the right arm because they think it'll
be fun.

Speaker 9 (01:30:38):
Can we stop them?

Speaker 10 (01:30:39):
Like, there's so many examples I can give you of
where we would violate people's bodily autonomy. What about a
person who's having like a manic episode and doesn't want
to go to the hospital.

Speaker 9 (01:30:48):
Can we violate their bodily autonomy?

Speaker 6 (01:30:49):
You're a threat to themselves? Are others? So again that
would fall in there.

Speaker 9 (01:30:52):
What if they're not a threat? What if they're just
having like a manic episode, they don't want to leave
their house. You just perceive it that way. It happens
all the time exactly, so you we violate that.

Speaker 10 (01:31:00):
Whatever you consider what you're by your definition bodily autonomy
when you say to people deserve that, and I say
absolutely not by that definition, because I can point to
three hundred different reasons why we would need to violate it.

Speaker 6 (01:31:12):
Is there any definition of bodily autonomy that you think
that it's.

Speaker 9 (01:31:15):
Not that I'm aware of.

Speaker 10 (01:31:16):
I'm not aware of a definition of bodily autonomy I
would agree to that.

Speaker 9 (01:31:19):
I wouldn't think we should be able to violate.

Speaker 6 (01:31:21):
So you don't think that people should have the ability
to control themselves and their bodies under any circumstance.

Speaker 9 (01:31:28):
Because I didn't say under any circumstances?

Speaker 6 (01:31:30):
What the circumstance in which people should have the right
to control their body?

Speaker 1 (01:31:33):
Yeah?

Speaker 10 (01:31:33):
So well, for me, I would say that if it's
in some type of case of will, that you could
do that. But I mean, ultimately I think you will. Yeah, no,
in case of will. So I'm not sure that I
believe in some universalized right for bodily autonomy. And you
haven't really given me any definitional reason why you should.

Speaker 6 (01:31:54):
But I don't understand why you don't believe in bodily autonomy.

Speaker 10 (01:31:58):
Why because under standing of what bodily autonomy is is
that you basically have the right to do whatever you
want absent the infringement of somebody else's bodily autonomy.

Speaker 6 (01:32:07):
Yes, why don't you think people?

Speaker 10 (01:32:09):
Because I think that I need to many times infringe
on people's bodily autonomy for their good or societies.

Speaker 6 (01:32:14):
Why are you constantly infringing on other people's bodily autonomy?

Speaker 9 (01:32:17):
What are you? What do you mean what you just said?

Speaker 10 (01:32:20):
I feel the need to Well, I would use force
doctrine for that, meaning voting things like that.

Speaker 6 (01:32:26):
When are you forcing when I go vote?

Speaker 10 (01:32:31):
I'm forcing my will when I go vote on other
people through force doctrine?

Speaker 6 (01:32:35):
No, you're not, because they all have a vote.

Speaker 9 (01:32:37):
Can I vote it?

Speaker 6 (01:32:37):
Not? According to you?

Speaker 1 (01:32:38):
But I can.

Speaker 9 (01:32:40):
I can vote and you can vote right? Yes? Okay,
you want abortions to be legal? Yes?

Speaker 10 (01:32:44):
If I vote against that, am I voting against your
bodily autonomy?

Speaker 6 (01:32:47):
Yes?

Speaker 9 (01:32:48):
Thank you? Okay? Can we move on now?

Speaker 6 (01:32:52):
Okay? Well, Andrew, you still haven't explained why humans don't
deserve bodily autonomy.

Speaker 9 (01:32:57):
Like what I just explained it to you?

Speaker 6 (01:32:58):
So then who could can?

Speaker 9 (01:33:01):
Well, in this case, we would use we.

Speaker 10 (01:33:03):
Would use groupings of laws under from my view, would
be like Christian ethics. From your view, it would be like,
I don't know, shared bizarre intuitions or whatever.

Speaker 9 (01:33:11):
Where you think that, I don't know, I don't know
where it is that you.

Speaker 11 (01:33:16):
Do.

Speaker 10 (01:33:16):
You believe in God, and it's just intuition, So everything
that you believe probably just inside you believe.

Speaker 6 (01:33:23):
Well, I mean there's also facts and like physical evidence,
but you know, so.

Speaker 10 (01:33:27):
You believe facts and physical evidence require an interpreter, right,
Like eyes and ears they require they would require you
to interpret them.

Speaker 6 (01:33:37):
So you're saying that facts are different for everyone, regardless
of how they enter.

Speaker 10 (01:33:40):
Well, they require an interpreter, and the interpreter can interpret
them however they choose, and then can make moral prescriptions
based on those.

Speaker 9 (01:33:46):
But when we get to the moral prescriptions.

Speaker 6 (01:33:48):
Facts don't change based on your but your.

Speaker 10 (01:33:50):
Moral prescriptions based on the facts do. That's why they're Yeah,
they require interpreters. So I'm not really willing to kind
of seed the ground.

Speaker 6 (01:33:59):
You are your own personal interpreter.

Speaker 10 (01:34:01):
Now, yeah, I interpret things correct, yes, okay, and so
do I that's yeah, I know, but I just don't
we all and then we may, right, but I have
any judgments about those facts, right, But I have an
epistemic foundation that I appeal to for foundational morals.

Speaker 9 (01:34:14):
You don't you think that.

Speaker 6 (01:34:16):
Everyone should have to subscribe to the Christian God and
that is who decides who has free will?

Speaker 9 (01:34:19):
I think that Christian ethic.

Speaker 10 (01:34:21):
I'm confused as to what that we're not even we
weren't talking about free will. Okay, So then what we're
talking about bodily autonomy now?

Speaker 12 (01:34:26):
Okay?

Speaker 10 (01:34:27):
So then based on based on your definition of bodily autonomy,
the one that you gave me, we would definitely need
to violate it, and you even agree to that. Don't
what just for abortion or what no, for the purpose
of like suicide, cutting yourself with razor blades, all sorts
of various things that you could do to yourself for
self harm, that we would step in and violate your

(01:34:49):
bodily autonomy over okay.

Speaker 6 (01:34:51):
So outside of those specific examples in which someone is
committing an act of harm, which I also removed from
my definition of.

Speaker 10 (01:34:59):
Bottles, then I don't say that bodily autonomy anymore. By
your definition, your definition would have to be something different
to the.

Speaker 6 (01:35:04):
Right grocery store. Who has that right? Who are you
saying under your standpoint of government? What is it based
on your equal force objection? Can women do that? They
should not be allowed.

Speaker 10 (01:35:16):
So let's untangle some ideas. When you say, who has
a right to go to a grocery store? Who has
an inherent right to go to a grocery store, or
who has a physical right enforced by men to go
to a grocery store?

Speaker 9 (01:35:28):
Which thing are you asking?

Speaker 10 (01:35:30):
What are you an inherent right or some external subjective
right that is enforced.

Speaker 9 (01:35:36):
Which thing are you asking?

Speaker 6 (01:35:37):
I'm saying, who has an inherent right to somebody? Their
body is nobody.

Speaker 9 (01:35:40):
Nobody has an inherent right to do anything. Nobody, nobody
has an inherent right to do anything.

Speaker 6 (01:35:45):
So then how do we gain the physical right to
go to the grocery through force? Exclusively through force?

Speaker 10 (01:35:50):
Yeah, the only reason that Like, so if like let's
say the Taliban took over like the the grocery store area,
do you have the right to go to the grocery store?

Speaker 1 (01:35:58):
Now?

Speaker 11 (01:35:59):
No?

Speaker 9 (01:35:59):
But that's now, then you're agreeing with me. So then
you're saying there's no inherent right.

Speaker 6 (01:36:04):
It sounds like you're advocating for anarchy. And the only
way that you're advocating for anarchy, the only way that
people gain a right is through force, and we'd all
be fighting each other all the time to gain the
right to just.

Speaker 10 (01:36:13):
Know, we don't can cooperate for the purpose of force, doctor,
and we do it constantly.

Speaker 9 (01:36:18):
What do you mean, No, we don't because.

Speaker 6 (01:36:19):
We don't live under a force doctrin principle.

Speaker 1 (01:36:21):
Yes we do.

Speaker 6 (01:36:22):
Well, how would old people have the power to do anything?
How would disabled people have because they have no one
can defend themselves.

Speaker 9 (01:36:27):
They have people who have force which enable them to
do those things. That's how.

Speaker 6 (01:36:33):
So then there is power that comes not from force.
If people who do not have the power to force
can utilize the strength of others on their.

Speaker 9 (01:36:41):
Behalf the strength of others would be force.

Speaker 6 (01:36:44):
Okay, But how did that person at the top doesn't
have force utilize the strength of others.

Speaker 9 (01:36:49):
He's utilizing other people's force.

Speaker 6 (01:36:51):
Okay, But what is he doing to utilize their force
because he somehow has power over them?

Speaker 9 (01:36:56):
How he doesn't have Well, it's agreed to power.

Speaker 10 (01:36:58):
But the thing about power, dynast which is interesting, is
that if you have control over force, if that were
to shift, like let's say the president said some ship
that you really didn't like, and a big ass mob
showed up to take him out right, and nobody opposed that.

Speaker 9 (01:37:12):
Who has force doctrine on their side?

Speaker 6 (01:37:14):
That's fair? So I want to go back to this
claim you said, hang on.

Speaker 9 (01:37:17):
Before we go back to my claims.

Speaker 1 (01:37:20):
I want it on.

Speaker 9 (01:37:21):
Wait, wait, wait, And I would like to just ask
hang on. You said that's fair though, right, you said
that's fair.

Speaker 6 (01:37:26):
No, I'm you said that's fair. I'm responding to the
words you're saying. If you said, agreed to power based
on force, yeah, and that those who are disabled are
protected and their will is protected, and those who are
elderly are protected and their will if there's force, yeah,
Then why can't you do the same thing with women?
Why do women now usurp their right to protection and

(01:37:47):
body the autonomy under.

Speaker 9 (01:37:48):
There's not rights. These aren't rights, it's just force.

Speaker 10 (01:37:51):
Cant can women like manipulate men to use force in
their behalf? Sure that's happened before. Okay, great, but they're
always going to have to appeal to men's strength for
for worse, no matter what.

Speaker 6 (01:38:01):
But I don't think society is intrinsically and implicitly governed
by force, and I think advocating.

Speaker 10 (01:38:05):
For that which part of society via which part of
societies not governed by force?

Speaker 9 (01:38:10):
Which part.

Speaker 6 (01:38:12):
I mean schools aren't governed by Yes, they're governed by
force for sure. Really, so kids go to school because
they're afraid they're going to get.

Speaker 9 (01:38:19):
No, they're not going to school because they're afraid they're
going to get hurt.

Speaker 10 (01:38:22):
But they's security guards who are around, There's police officers
are around.

Speaker 9 (01:38:24):
There's been people who enable that nothing's bad's going to
happen to those kids.

Speaker 10 (01:38:28):
There's teachers who are there much stronger than the students
to keep potential threats away from the students.

Speaker 9 (01:38:32):
All of it's governed by force.

Speaker 6 (01:38:33):
Okay, But you're talking about force for protection versus force
for the utilization and monopoly of it.

Speaker 9 (01:38:38):
It's all the same thing.

Speaker 6 (01:38:39):
It's not the same thing.

Speaker 1 (01:38:40):
Same.

Speaker 6 (01:38:41):
If you're protecting people's right to be somewhere, then that
is a different use of force.

Speaker 9 (01:38:46):
Then, but they're both force sure. Okay, great, then they're
the same thing. Force sure.

Speaker 6 (01:38:52):
But why are you just because you have a monopoly
on force? What gives you the will to usurp someone's
right to very basic bottle in?

Speaker 9 (01:39:02):
They don't have rights. Rights are not by your agreement inherent.

Speaker 6 (01:39:07):
So then what's to stop a bigger, stronger man from
just beating the shit out of you?

Speaker 10 (01:39:10):
And now you don't have nothing except force doctrine. That's
the whole point.

Speaker 6 (01:39:14):
And why would you want to live in a society
in which everyone.

Speaker 10 (01:39:17):
Is Like I didn't say, you have to live in
a society in which individuals can get beaten up by somebody.

Speaker 9 (01:39:22):
Who's next to them.

Speaker 6 (01:39:23):
What force doctrine is?

Speaker 10 (01:39:24):
No force doctrine would be like the cops would show
up and beat that guy down with billy clubs, drag
is asked to prison, Then he would get thrown in
a prison where guards would make sure he stayed there.

Speaker 9 (01:39:35):
Okay, so that's all.

Speaker 6 (01:39:36):
Forced, which is appropriate through force doctrine.

Speaker 9 (01:39:39):
Well, I don't even know what that means. What are
you asking so.

Speaker 6 (01:39:42):
The force and the power to I mean, you're basically
saying that women do not have the right to. I
don't know, because you won't define what rights are to
do really anything.

Speaker 9 (01:39:54):
Okay, yes, I'll tell you again.

Speaker 1 (01:39:56):
What did I say?

Speaker 9 (01:39:57):
Right is a duty?

Speaker 10 (01:40:00):
Sorry, a privilege absent a duty and you agreed to
it four times, have no privilege. I just want to
point out your lie, you said, I said, I keep lying,
or you keep lying. You just said I never defined privilege.

Speaker 6 (01:40:15):
No, I did it.

Speaker 9 (01:40:16):
Yes, you literally just said that, and I defined it
four times.

Speaker 6 (01:40:19):
You didn't say you didn't define privilege. You didn't define privilege,
you defined right.

Speaker 9 (01:40:24):
Oh my god. A privilege absent duty?

Speaker 6 (01:40:28):
Is what a privileged absent of a duty? I'd say
like free will?

Speaker 9 (01:40:34):
Right, it's a right. I defined it multiple times.

Speaker 6 (01:40:37):
So what are you trying to say that because women
cannot defend physically their right to do things that they
do not deserve rights.

Speaker 9 (01:40:47):
Is that the point they can't force their own rights.

Speaker 6 (01:40:49):
Okay, because someone cannot enforce their own rights, they don't
deserve rights, Well, they don't have them. But do they
deserve them?

Speaker 9 (01:40:57):
Well, you're again. Then you're moving into a different claim.

Speaker 10 (01:41:02):
So if you want to get into like what people
deserve or don't deserve, right, we can get into that.
But can we at least agree on the descriptor of
how it works?

Speaker 9 (01:41:11):
First?

Speaker 6 (01:41:13):
No, okay, because women, I'm trying to understand why women
don't deserve rights because they cannot fit.

Speaker 9 (01:41:19):
That's a different claim.

Speaker 10 (01:41:20):
I just asked you if we could agree to the
descriptor before we move to that claim, and you said no,
and then brought that claim up again.

Speaker 6 (01:41:26):
Because the claim doesn't make sense. I don't understand your claim.

Speaker 10 (01:41:29):
O make the claim and then literally answering all of
your questions for this claim not well though, like what
are you which question?

Speaker 9 (01:41:35):
Which thing? Or am I not answering?

Speaker 6 (01:41:37):
If women do not have a monopoly enforced, you cannot
control their own bodies, why don't they deserve basic human rights?
Basic equal rights?

Speaker 9 (01:41:47):
Okay, let's try this again. It's like talking to a
fucking child. Okay, do you have Do you agree with me?

Speaker 6 (01:41:54):
No?

Speaker 9 (01:41:54):
Okay? Do you agree this is hilarious. I'm not pissed off.

Speaker 6 (01:42:01):
I'm just as you are emotional.

Speaker 1 (01:42:04):
Look at it.

Speaker 9 (01:42:04):
You're the one freaking out, not me.

Speaker 6 (01:42:06):
I'm not freaking out. I think this is hilarious.

Speaker 9 (01:42:08):
For me.

Speaker 10 (01:42:08):
It's extremely frustrating talking someone doesn't actually understand the words
that are coming out of my mouth.

Speaker 6 (01:42:13):
It's sounding very emotional right now, Andrew, Can we.

Speaker 9 (01:42:16):
Go back to get some water?

Speaker 1 (01:42:17):
Yeah?

Speaker 9 (01:42:17):
Can we go back and go through all you.

Speaker 1 (01:42:19):
Need to cry?

Speaker 9 (01:42:20):
Can we go back?

Speaker 6 (01:42:20):
I'm here for you, my friend.

Speaker 9 (01:42:21):
Can we go back through these descriptors?

Speaker 11 (01:42:23):
Now?

Speaker 9 (01:42:24):
Sure?

Speaker 6 (01:42:24):
Okay, all right, you want to keep defining words.

Speaker 9 (01:42:28):
What is right from your perspective?

Speaker 6 (01:42:32):
Okay, I mean, I'm fine with your definition on those
descriptors not.

Speaker 9 (01:42:35):
But I want your definition.

Speaker 6 (01:42:36):
I'm fine with your definition.

Speaker 10 (01:42:37):
Then why do you keep contradicting yourself? If you're fine
with my definition.

Speaker 6 (01:42:40):
I'm not contradicting myself. Your claim just doesn't make sense
that humans do not deserve rights specifically because they cannot fisic.

Speaker 10 (01:42:45):
When did I say they didn't deserve them? You just
did Like I said, they don't exist inherently, right.

Speaker 6 (01:42:51):
Okay, So whether or not it doesn't exist inherently, does
someone still deserve that right they cannot physically defend them.

Speaker 10 (01:42:59):
How do you deserve something that doesn't exist but it
does exist?

Speaker 9 (01:43:03):
Okay, so now it exists? Does it exist or not exist?

Speaker 1 (01:43:07):
I mean, do I have.

Speaker 6 (01:43:08):
Bodily autonomy currently?

Speaker 1 (01:43:09):
Yes?

Speaker 6 (01:43:09):
Can I go walk around my house and do what
I want?

Speaker 4 (01:43:12):
Yes?

Speaker 6 (01:43:12):
So on a certain level it does exist. Where I
mean right here, right now, I'm here on my own freewell.

Speaker 9 (01:43:18):
Because you can do this. So because you can do this,
you have the right to do this.

Speaker 6 (01:43:22):
I'm trying to see what extent you think women should
not be allowed to do things because they cannot monopolize
and control.

Speaker 9 (01:43:29):
Yeah, but others basically you understand that, Like, I just.

Speaker 6 (01:43:32):
Don't understand practically what you want out of this. When
you women can't, it's hard.

Speaker 10 (01:43:38):
It's hard to argue with you because you don't have
any understanding of philosophy at all.

Speaker 9 (01:43:42):
So when I bring these things up, that's not the
issue that agree philosophy.

Speaker 6 (01:43:46):
It's on am it morally doesn't make sense?

Speaker 9 (01:43:48):
Okay, I'll tell you what negate it negate the proposition.

Speaker 6 (01:43:52):
Okay, sure, with what I said before, So you're basically
saying that people who utilize force to execute laws are
those who have the ability to control those laws. My
issue is that and in terms of a movement towards
equity or a goal of eliminating and in terms of feminism,
you're saying it's a movement towards equity with the goal
of eliminating patriarchal systems. My issue is that I fundamentally

(01:44:17):
do not believe that laws should be exclusively enforced to
the benefit of those who have physical power.

Speaker 10 (01:44:26):
Okay, that's not a negation of forced doctrine. So, like,
I don't know what to it you're so philosophically illiterate
that you actually don't even understand what I'm saying to you, and.

Speaker 6 (01:44:37):
You're just regularly illiterate. I mean, dude, Like, then just
argue the claim.

Speaker 9 (01:44:40):
I did argue the claim, but it doesn't make sense,
then falsify it.

Speaker 6 (01:44:44):
Okay, just because someone can do something does not mean
that they ought to do it. Just because men can
force women to do what they want doesn't mean that
they ought so.

Speaker 9 (01:44:54):
Then descriptively, do you agree with forced doctrine?

Speaker 6 (01:44:58):
I mean, I believe on a blanket, I believe on
like a smaller level. I think that interpersonally, someone can
use force if they have more force.

Speaker 9 (01:45:09):
Okay, let's try this. What is force doctrine?

Speaker 6 (01:45:12):
Force doctrine is your whole thing, that men have a
monopoly on force, and human beings have no inherent rights.
All laws are enforced to buy force, and violence is
used to maintain societal regularity on a certain level.

Speaker 10 (01:45:28):
And that women have to appeal to men for the
their monopoly on force in order to secure their whatever
needs or writes or whatever it is they want.

Speaker 9 (01:45:36):
Right, that's part of force doctrine. Sure, Okay, do you
a creation? Then do you agree with the description.

Speaker 6 (01:45:45):
Do you agree the description is said I agreed with
the description.

Speaker 10 (01:45:48):
That's I asked you four times if you agreed with
the description, and I said, I agreed with.

Speaker 6 (01:45:53):
It four times. Well, one time I said, not to
piss you off, but then the other times I.

Speaker 10 (01:45:56):
Said, yes, So you agreed with me that when it
comes to force doctrine, you agree to the descriptor being true.

Speaker 9 (01:46:03):
Sure, okay, now we can get somewhere.

Speaker 6 (01:46:05):
Maybe that's what I said.

Speaker 9 (01:46:06):
Oh my god, I mean he never did, but okay
I did Andrew. So now that we can get past.

Speaker 10 (01:46:13):
That, Now that you've agreed to force doctrine, can you
tell me why men should enforce women's rights?

Speaker 6 (01:46:19):
Why men should enforce women's rights. I don't necessarily think
that will. I think the free will is honestly a privilege,
I mean, not a privilege. I think the free will
is a right. I think that everyone has the rights
of bottle.

Speaker 9 (01:46:31):
There, then you don't agree to force doctrine. Why'd you
lie to me?

Speaker 6 (01:46:35):
You asked me if I agreed with your definition, with
your definition of it, I don't morally agree with it.

Speaker 9 (01:46:41):
That's all.

Speaker 10 (01:46:41):
If we don't agree with the descriptor, then we again,
we have to argue the descriptor until you either falsify
the descriptor or or agree with the descriptor. It can't
be either or it has to be either, or it
can't be can't be anything else. It's either true or
it's false.

Speaker 6 (01:46:56):
I just want to understand your moral justification for controlling
someone else's body. I'm talking on a moral basinis, not
that you can't physically. I understand that you can physically.
I agree with the premise.

Speaker 9 (01:47:07):
That's nice.

Speaker 10 (01:47:08):
What I asked why if I asked you a question
and he didn't answer it?

Speaker 9 (01:47:13):
Why should men enforce women's rights? Why should they?

Speaker 6 (01:47:19):
Because it is morally inacceptable to control others. It is
morally impromisy.

Speaker 10 (01:47:23):
That's the opposite. You're not controlling if you're enforcing their rights.
It sounds like they're controlling you, right, Like, how are
you controlling them by enforcing their rights?

Speaker 6 (01:47:33):
But right is simply, as we've defined it, a privilege
without it.

Speaker 9 (01:47:38):
So why should men enforce women's privileges?

Speaker 1 (01:47:40):
But they don't have to?

Speaker 6 (01:47:41):
So what are you defining?

Speaker 10 (01:47:42):
Answer my question? Why should men enforce women's privileges?

Speaker 6 (01:47:46):
They don't have to force women's I think I think
it's great.

Speaker 9 (01:47:51):
I believe the exact same thing. Perfect.

Speaker 6 (01:47:54):
You don't have to enforce.

Speaker 9 (01:47:55):
Oh my goodness, he's coming back.

Speaker 4 (01:47:57):
He's just.

Speaker 10 (01:47:59):
Who I've got any with my entire position, the I
could agree with you that men should not enforce women.

Speaker 6 (01:48:09):
Well, you didn't let me finish the sentence.

Speaker 9 (01:48:10):
I don't really need to. You conceded the debate.

Speaker 6 (01:48:12):
No, I did not concede the debate. Andrew, you're just
walking away because you're mad.

Speaker 1 (01:48:20):
I am.

Speaker 4 (01:48:21):
He's just taking a brief break. Oh can you We'll
have you stay at the table.

Speaker 6 (01:48:27):
Oh, I want to just so, that's not fair. Why
does he get smoke?

Speaker 4 (01:48:29):
You want to smoke with?

Speaker 6 (01:48:31):
Oh?

Speaker 11 (01:48:31):
No?

Speaker 6 (01:48:31):
Oh is he gonna come back?

Speaker 1 (01:48:33):
Yeah?

Speaker 8 (01:48:33):
So usually we'll just have one person take a break
at the time. Yeah, sure, while we do that.

Speaker 3 (01:48:51):
Yeah, job, tell.

Speaker 1 (01:49:19):
Where somebody letting me now when y'all releasing on me?
Right your body out the job. Don't go back. Really,
somebody is letting me now when y'all releasing on me.

(01:49:40):
He ride your body out.

Speaker 14 (01:49:44):
That's a pretty thing, looking the way, And all of
a sudden mine is away to to see the pretext
fire appropriate thing, and this the NA play for bed
as I proceed to ask if she'd like topen to
eat this man drinking to see what the events would
eventually lead. She's not biting and said she did anything
happen the book took her ride to to tell where
I pleased in the night.

Speaker 6 (01:50:05):
But I could talk from the look in her eyes.
She wasn't little happing soon. So I was the food
to pursue that for filing her loss for desire so.

Speaker 14 (01:50:13):
Simple got me fucking my mother goalking port. As soon
as I opened the door, I closed up to the
floor and a SI in the salloway began to move
towards the Californ continueway and let you want to meet
the maple for mayprol war. I penitated her interestree for
more to grab my bag of dormsage that can't you
told her I'm not coming, but you couldn't move.

Speaker 3 (01:50:32):
That when metellus and let me.

Speaker 5 (01:50:58):
When he said he's to get my lips take my
fish nets, and I'm sizzling, and he said you're trying
to come around town, I said, nah, how I'm definitnna
de play. I said, if I wanted to dep I
would get grown Foles said, be a good.

Speaker 6 (01:51:17):
Confidence with sky high. He can't track to be chest met.
I thot that's not to say I'm shy, but please
describe the plot.

Speaker 5 (01:51:23):
Pick in he tales to and drive me thigh and
whispered and gushing mam n a lady flat and curs
you done a smile to get back.

Speaker 6 (01:51:32):
I ain't even trying to truck. I just want to touch.

Speaker 9 (01:51:35):
I ain't even try to nothing.

Speaker 6 (01:51:36):
I want to hit the bus. Just taste the little
make between the middle. See the sexy smile. He is
sexy people.

Speaker 1 (01:51:41):
Just try me.

Speaker 6 (01:51:41):
I guarantee trying to do you this able gin one time.

Speaker 1 (01:51:46):
I'm nine.

Speaker 6 (01:51:47):
I can make that body still. He talks and looked
at him. Me said whether the unexpected ends on?

Speaker 1 (01:52:00):
He isn't let me? Why don't you passing on me?
P of tint of card of head?

Speaker 3 (01:52:11):
Don't tell the boat baby, Just tell.

Speaker 1 (01:52:15):
Me there's somebody isn't let me now.

Speaker 6 (01:52:18):
When don't be.

Speaker 1 (01:52:19):
Pacing on me like py of me? Just try me?
Can you just scared?

Speaker 9 (01:52:28):
Go for me?

Speaker 1 (01:52:31):
Just can go for me? Can no can know? Can
it just cand go for me? Just good? Go for me.

Speaker 3 (01:52:49):
Can

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Feminism debate aka W.A.S.P (women are stupid people) pt. 1😈

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

All Episodes

Feminism debate aka W.A.S.P (women are stupid people) pt. 1😈

Stuff You Should Know